rust inc - final soil vapor extraction system … · final soh. vapor extraction system feasibility...

Quality • Integrity • Creativity • Responsiveness

SKINNER LANDFILL

FINAL SOILVAPOR EXTRACTION

SYSTEM FEASIBILITYINVESTIGATION

WEST CHESTERBUTLER COUNTY, OHIO

PREPARED BY:

RUST ENVIRONMENT &INFRASTRUCTURE INC

11785 HIGHWA Y DRIVESUITE 100

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45241(513) 483-5300

AUGUST 1995

SKINNER LANDFILL

FINAL SOILVAPOR EXTRACTION

SYSTEM FEASIBILITYINVESTIGATION

WEST CHESTERBUTLER COUNTY, OHIO

PREPARED BY:

RUST ENVIRONME\T AINFRASTRUCTURE I\C.

11785 HIGHWA Y DRII ESUITE 100

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45241(513) 483-5300

AUGUST 1995

SKINNER LANDFILL

FINAL SOH. VAPOR EXTRACTIONSYSTEM FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION

WEST CHESTER, BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO

Prepared by:

Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.11785 Highway Drive, Suite 100

Cincinnati, Ohio 45241(513) 483-5300

August 7, 1995

Revision 1

Skinner LandfillSoil Vapor Extraction

System Feasibility Investigation

Prepared by: Rust Environment & Infrastructure Inc.11785 Highway Dr., Suite 100Cincinnati, Ohio 45241on behalf of the Skinner Landfill PRP Group

Date: August 7, 1995

Approvals:Jarney Bell /

•'TJ.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager

Date

Larryl/BonsT Ph.D.PRP Group Technical Committee ChairmanDow Chemical Company

Date

Date.Edward C. Copeland, P.E.Technical Project Manager for the PRP GroupRust Environment & Infrastructure Inc.

Skinner LandfillButler County. Ohio_____________________________________SVE System Feasibility Investigation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 SITE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 GENERAL SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION

TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2i

2.0 PROJECT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.1 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION - BURIED LAGOON PERIMETER 53.2 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4.0 SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION F I N D I N G S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5.0 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 MODFLOW APPLICATIONS AND FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105.2 HYPERVENTILATE SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS AND FINDINGS . 11

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1 Site Location Map2 Buried Lagoon Test Boring Configuration3 Soil Venting MODFLOW Simulation - Finite Difference Grid System4 Approximate Line of SVE Wells for Containment

n:62680\wp\svefeas.w61 i August 1995

Skinner LandfillButler County, Ohio____________________________________SVE System Feasibility Investigation

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1 Geotechnical Analyses Results

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

A Soil Borehole LogsB Grain Size Distribution ReportsC Coefficient of Uniformity and Curvature FormulasD USDA Triangle Coordinate Soil Classification ChartsE Casagrande's Plasticity ChartF Gas Permeability CalculationsG Lateral Pressure Drop From Soil Venting WellsH HyperVentilate Information Package

n:'62680\wp'\svefeas.\v61 H August 1995

Skinner LandfillButler Countv, Ohio SVTL System Feasibility Investigation

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS

AOC Administrative Order on ConsentASTM American Society for Testing and MaterialsCc Coefficient of Curvaturecfm Cubic Feet Per MinuteCu Coefficient of UniformityFI Feasibility InvestigationIRM Interim Remedial MeasuresLL Liquid LimitMSL Mean Sea LevelOEPA Ohio Environmental Protection AgencyPI Plasticity IndexPRP Potentially Responsible PartyRDWP Remedial Design Work PlanRust Rust Environment & InfrastructureRI Remedial InvestigationROD Record of DecisionSOW Statement of WorkSVOC Semi-Volatile Organic CompoundsSVE Soil Vapor ExtractionUSCS Unified Soils Classification SystemUSD A United States Department of AgricultureUSEPA United States Environmental Protection AgencyUSGS United States Geological SurveyVOC Volatile Organic Compounds

n: "svefeas. w6J III August 1995


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) between theUnited States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Skinner Landfill PotentiallyResponsible Party (PRP) Group dated March 29, 1994, a field evaluation and proposal for Soil VaporExtraction (SVE) have been performed. This work was completed in accordance with the Statementof Work for Remedial Design, Skinner Landfill Site, Butler County, Ohio and the Remedial DesignWork Plan dated August 25, 1994.

The Skinner Landfill site is located approximately 15 miles north of Cincinnati, Ohio near the city ofWest Chester. The site was used in the past for sand and gravel mining, and was operated fromapproximately 1934 through 1990 to landfill a wide variety of materials. According to EPA studies,materials deposited at the site include demolition debris, household refuse, and a broad range ofchemical wastes. Past field investigations have revealed that contamination was found at the buriedwaste lagoon. This report presents the results of the buried lagoon SVE System FeasibilityInvestigation (FI) performed at the Skinner Landfill Site.

The SVE System FI consists of three parts:

1) Buried Lagoon (Perimeter) Soils Investigation2) Geotechnical Laboratory Analysis3) Evaluation of Soil Vapor Extraction Feasibility

The following information summarizes the investigative methods, findings and recommendations ofthe SVE System FI.

Buried Lagoon (Perimeter) Soils Investigation

1. Subsurface Investigation - Buried Lagoon Perimetera. Seven test borings were installed in October 1994.b. The static water table was observed at approximately 18 to 27 feet belowground surface.c. Two distinct soil zones have been defined:

1. Beneath lagoon - silty clay (prior investigation)2. Lagoon perimeter - sandy loamThese findings indicated that two contrasting permeabilities were observed.

2. Soil samples were submitted for the following geotechnical analyses:a. Sieve Analysisb. Atterberg Limitsc. Moisture Contentd. Organic Carbon Contente. Classification

n:\62680\wp\svefeas.\v61 iv August 1995


Geotechnical Laboratory Analysis

1. Sieve Analysis findings indicated that well-graded sediments were present at theperimeter of the lagoon. This means that soil particles cover a wide range ofdiameters from very fine to very coarse. With this range of particle sizes, void spacesare filled with fine grained materials, thus decreasing porosity and limiting theeffectiveness of vapor flow for an SVE remedial system.

2. Atterberg Limits testing results showed that soils on the perimeter of the lagooninclude silty clays, clayey silts, and clayey sands. This test is mainly used to evaluateclay soils. The data indicate that very fine particles are present in the SVE zone,which would hamper remediation.

3. Moisture Content results indicated an average moisture content of 5.4 percent. Ageneral range of moisture content is from 10 to 20 percent. Typically, the greater themoisture content the slower contaminant removal rates will be.

4. Organic Carbon Content testing results showed a geometric mean organic carboncontent of 3.4 percent. Soils with an organic carbon content of more than 1 percenthave a high sorption capacity for volatile organic compounds (VOC). This means thepotential effectiveness of SVE will be reduced.

5. Two soil classification test results showed that the sediments on the perimeter of theburied lagoon are well graded, ranging from fine- to coarse-grained sediments.According to USCS particle size distribution charts, test results indicated that theburied lagoon perimeter soils are mainly silts and clays. According to the USDAclassification system, the sediments tested were considered a sandy loam. For bothclassification schemes, this means that the fine-grained sediments found in theperimeter area will have low porosity, thereby decreasing void spaces, and limitingSVE effectiveness.

Evaluation of Soil Vapor Extraction Feasibility

1. MODFLOW Computer Software Applications and Findingsa. MODFLOW-was used to evaluate the performance of an SVE system installed

in the permeable soils around the west, south, and east perimeter of the buriedlagoon.

b. Modeling was performed for transient conditions of 50 and 500 days,c. Surfer software was used to contour the radius of influence and vacuum

conditions.d. A MODFLOW runtime equal to 500 days yields:

Q (flowrate) = 160 cubic feet per minute (cfrn)Vacuum = 10 feet of water (ft H20)Radius of influence s 30 feet

n:\62680\wp\svefeos.w61 V August 1995

Skinner LandfillButler County, Ohio____________________________________5FE System Feasibility Investigation

e. To effectively remediate the buried lagoon, an SVE system located along thelagoon perimeter would require a radius of influence £ 75 feet to removecontaminants.

2. HyperVentilate Computer Software Applications and Findingsa. Due to the ineffectiveness of a perimeter-based remedial approach, Rust

investigated an approach assuming SVE wells would be placed in the silty clayzone of the buried lagoon. A computer software package calledHyperVentilate was used to determine the number of extraction wells requiredif the SVE wells were installed within the buried lagoon. This determinationevaluates the ease (or difficulty) of creating adequate air flow within theburied lagoon soils,

b. The evaluation indicated that a minimum of 84 SVE wells would be requiredin the buried lagoon.

c. Further, the evaluation indicated that a minimum of 32 SVE wells would berequired in the perimeter soils for containment.

Rust's Conclusions and Recommendations

Attempting to remediate the buried lagoon contamination by applying SVE technology to the morecoarse grained perimeter soils is not feasible because adequate air flow through the contaminatedzone can not be achieved with this approach. Factors precluding effective air flow include:

1. Topography constraints - Because the ground surface on the outside of the perimeter(i.e., the "clean" side) slopes away from the SVE system, there will be less resistanceto air flow; consequently, there will be more air flow coming from the perimeter andless from the lagoon (i.e., the target remediation zone).

2. Permeability contrasts - Because there is a permeability contrast of 3 to 4 orders ofmagnitude between the buried lagoon soils and the lagoon perimeter soils, thetendency for air to flow into the system from the contaminant zone (i.e., from theburied lagoon) will be minimized.

3. Effects of other remedial actions - Because the buried lagoon will be capped, therewill be even greater resistance to air flow through the target remediation zone, furtherhindering remediation. In addition, the cap and the groundwater interception systemwill combine to create an effective method to capture and contain contaminants,obviating the need for the SVE system as a containment measure.

In addition to these effects, the relatively high organic carbon content of the soil will have a highadsorption capacity for the VOCs within the subsurface, thereby further inhibiting the effectivenessof SVE.

No further evaluation of soil vapor extraction for remediation of the buried lagoon soils isrecommended.

n:\62680\v>p*svefeas.w61 VI August 1995


1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) System Feasibility Investigation(FI) performed at the Skinner Landfill Superfund Site, West Chester, Butler County, Ohio. The FIwas performed in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)for Remedial Design for the Skinner Landfill Site between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA) and the Skinner Landfill Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Group, dated March 29,1994. The AOC presented selected investigative actions for the site and the requirements for reportpresentation. Attachments to the AOC included the Record of Decision and the Statement of Work,which will be discussed in Section 2.0.

Rust Environment & Infrastructure (Rust) completed the FI in three tasks. The first activity involvedinstalling of seven soil borings around the perimeter of the buried lagoon. The second activityconsisted of detailed geotechnical testing of representative soil samples collected from these borings.The final activity was to evaluate the performance of possible SVE systems using MODFL OW andHyperVentilate computer software. The FI was performed in accordance with the approvedRemedial Design Work Plan submitted by Rust on August 25, 1994, and companion documents,Remedial Design Field Sampling Plan, Remedial Design Investigations Quality Assurance ProjectPlan, and Remedial Design Investigations Health and Safety Plan.

The remainder of this section of the FI presents descriptions and background information about theSkinner Landfill site. The project scope, objectives and the purpose of this investigation are discussedbriefly in Section 2.0. Section 3.0 addresses the first part of the investigation, while Section 4.0presents the geotechnical findings. SVE computer simulations are addressed in Section 5.0, whichdiscusses computer software applications and findings. Conclusions and recommendations arepresented in Section 6.0.

1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Skinner Landfill site is located approximately 15 miles north of Cincinnati, Ohio near the city ofWest Chester, an unincorporated area in Union Township, Butler County, Ohio, as shown inFigure 1. The Skinner site is comprised of approximately 78 acres of hilly terrain. The site isbordered on the south by the East Fork of Mill Creek, on the north by wooded, undeveloped land,on the east by a Consolidated Railroad Corporation (Conrail) right-of-way, and on the west bySkinner Creek.

The site is located in a highly dissected area that slopes from a till-mantled bedrock upland to a broad,flat-bottomed valley that is occupied by the main branch of Mill Creek. Elevations on the site rangefrom a high of nearly 800 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northeast to a low of 645 feet MSLnear the confluence of Skinner Creek and the East Fork of Mill Creek. Both Skinner Creek and theEast Fork of Mill Creek are small, shallow streams that flow to the southwest from the site towardthe main branch of Mill Creek.

n:*62680\\vp\svefeas.-w6l I August 1995

Shnner LandfillBullet-County, Ohio____________________________________5FE System Feasibility Investigation

1.2 SITE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

The site was used in the past for sand and gravel mining, and was operated from approximately 1934through 1990 to landfill a wide variety of materials. According to EPA studies, materials depositedat the site include demolition debris, household refuse, and a broad range of chemical wastes. Thewaste disposal areas include a now-buried waste lagoon near the center of the site and a landfill.According to EPA studies, the buried lagoon was used for the disposal of paint wastes, creosote,pesticides, and other chemical wastes. The landfill area, located north and northeast of the buriedlagoon, received predominantly demolition and landscaping debris.

In 1976, in response to a fire on the site and reported observations of a black, oily liquid in the wastelagoon, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) began an investigation of the SkinnerLandfill. Before the OEPA could complete this investigation, the Skinners covered the waste lagoonwith a layer of demolition debris, thereby hindering the investigation. Trenches were eventuallyexcavated into the buried waste lagoon, and black and orange liquids and a number of barrels ofwastes were observed.

In 1982 the site was placed on the National Priority List by the USEPA based on informationobtained during a limited investigation of the site. In 1986 a Phase I Remedial Investigation (RI) wasconducted that included sampling of groundwater, surface water, and soil as well as a biologicalsurvey of the East Fork of Mill Creek and Skinner Creek. A Phase II RI was conducted from 1989to 1991 and involved further investigation of groundwater, surface water, soils and sediments. ThePhase n RI also included investigation of the buried lagoon by means of soil borings drilled throughthe overlying construction/demolition debris and into the underlying native soils.

The field investigations have revealed that the most contaminated medium at the site is the soil fromthe buried waste lagoon. Lower levels of contamination were also found in soils on other portionsof the site and in the groundwater, and low levels were found in the sediments of East Fork of MillCreek, Skinner Creek, and the Duck and Diving Ponds. Migration of the contaminants has beenlimited, and the Phase II RI concluded that there had been no off-site migration of contaminants viagroundwater. In accordance with the December 9, 1992 AOC for Interim Remedial Measures (IRM),groundwater samples are being obtained and analyzed quarterly. In addition, a fence was installedaround the Skinner Landfill site and is inspected on a continuing biweekly basis.

1.3 GENERAL SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION

The SVE process is an in-situ technique for the removal of volatile organic compounds (VOC) andsome semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC) from the vadose zone of the soil. The vadose zoneis the subsurface soil zone located between the surface soil and the top of the water table. SVE iscommonly used with other technologies in a treatment train, since it transfers contaminants from soilto air and water wastestreams.

SVE treatment is conducted as follows. Vapor extraction wells or vents are installed in theunsaturated zone of a contaminated site. A vacuum is applied to the wells, usually supplemented bythe injection of ambient air through separate wells. When the air passes through the soil.

n:\62680\\vp\svefeas.\v61 2 August 1995

Skinner LandfillButler County, Ohio____________________________________SKE System Feasibility Investigation

contaminants are volatilized and removed via vacuum extraction wells. Entrained liquids areseparated from the air stream and the liquids are treated to remove contaminants. The gas is thendrawn through a blower, treated (if necessary) and discharged to the atmosphere.

The two primary limiting factors when considering use of SVE is the volatility of the contaminantsand the properties of the soil. SVE is most effective at removing compounds which have high vaporpressures and which exhibit significant volatility at ambient temperatures in contaminated soil. Theair permeability of the contaminated soils controls the rate at which air can be drawn through the soilby the applied vacuum. This is generally related to the grain size of the soil, with sandy soils havinga higher air permeability, while clayey or silty soils are less permeable. The soil moisture content ordegree of saturation is also important. Soil heterogeneities will also limit effectiveness due todifferential treatment and development of preferential pathways.

n:\62680\wp\svefeas.w61 3 August 19


2.0 PROJECT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

As documented in the Record of Decision (ROD), it was suggested during the public commentperiod that "extraction of the volatile organic vapors from the permeable materials surrounding thelagoon wastes be considered as a remedial alternative." It was this suggestion which initiated theSVE System FI.

The Statement of Work (SOW) indicated that the primary objective of the SVE System FI is todetermine the practicality of an SVE system removing organic vapors within the "permeable"perimeter materials adjacent to portions of the buried waste lagoon. The perimeter areas along andadjacent to the western, southern, and eastern boundaries of the buried waste lagoon area were tobe investigated.

The Remedial Design Work Plan (RDWP), submitted by Rust on August 25, 1994, indicated thatPhase I would consist of three primary tasks: soil borings, geotechnical laboratory testing, and thecomparison of findings with published literature. The scope of subsequent phases of investigationswould depend on the results of the Phase I investigation.

The Phase I field investigation for the FI consisted of seven borings drilled on the perimeter of theburied waste lagoon. The purpose of the borings was to determine the vertical and lateral distributionof granular materials adjacent to the buried lagoon. Selected soil samples from the borings weretested in a geotechnical laboratory to determine their gradation characteristics, moisture content andorganic carbon content. In addition to a limited data search, the results of the laboratory tests wereused in computer models to determine if SVE would be a practical technology for the remediationof buried lagoon volatile contaminants.

This document is intended to report methods, findings and conclusions of the Phase I investigationAs discussed in the RDWP, if the findings of the investigation indicate that an SVE system may bea viable method to remove organic vapors from the granular materials adjacent to the buried wastelagoon, the report will contain recommendations and proposals for additional work that may berequired in subsequent phases to further evaluate and design an SVE system. If the findings of theinvestigation are that an SVE system is not feasible, the report will recommend that no further actionbe taken with respect to SVE.

The SOW established a May 23, 1995 submittal date for the completion of a draft report on the SVESystem FI.

n:\62680\wp\svefeas.w61 4 August I0')>

Skinner LandfillButler County, Ohio SVE System Feasibility Investigation

3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES

As defined in the approved RDWP, the purpose of the supplemental field investigation was to obtainadditional data for evaluating the feasibility of an SVE system for the removal of organic vaporswithin the soils adjacent to the buried waste lagoon. The perimeter areas along and adjacent to thewestern, southern and eastern boundaries of the buried waste lagoon area were investigated.Supplemental site investigation activities began in November 1994 under the direction of Rustpersonnel. During the course of this investigation, Rust employees installed a series of on-site testborings and submitted representative soil samples for geotechnical testing. Field investigation taskswere conducted in accordance with the requirements of the OEPA and USEPA.

3.1 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION - BURIED LAGOON PERIMETER

The supplemental field efforts consisted of evaluating the subsurface materials to identify the natureand extent of potential SVE applications. Seven soil borings were installed along the perimeter ofthe buried waste lagoon to determine the physical characteristics, areal extent and uniformity ofsediments. Locations of these borings are shown in Figure 2. The depths of borings varied fromdepths of 14 to 42 feet below grade. Descriptions of the subsurface materials are presented in theSoil Borehole Logs contained in Appendix A. Continuous soil samples were obtained in accordancewith American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Methods.

3.2 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY ANALYSES

Soil samples were obtained for geotechnical testing to determine whether or not the subsurfacesediments are conducive to SVE applications. Each soil sample collected was properly logged in thefield and classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Analyses forcomplete grain size, Atterberg Limits, and moisture content were performed on one representativesample from each designated test boring location. All geotechnical analyses were conducted inaccordance with appropriate ASTM standards. The depth of these samples was selected in a rangebelow the contamination and above the water table. The samples were collected at the depths wherethe SVE well screens would actually be open and at which the vacuum would actually be applied.Typically, a SVE well point is constructed with a screened interval near the bottom of the well (butabove the water table) so that air is drawn from the ground surface downward through the entirevadose zone. As such, the geotechnical data at the bottom of the anticipated well point are of interestbecause this defines the zone of influence the well will create. The following table indicates thedepths at which each sample was obtained:

TestBoring

Sampledepth (ft)

B-59

14-16

B-61

10-12

B-62

14-16

B-63

16-20

B-64

18-22

B-65

18-22

B-66

16-18

n: \62680\\vpl'svefeas.'w6l August 1995

Skinner LandfillButler Countv, Ohio SVE System Feasibility Investigation

4.0 SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION FINDINGS

On November 11, 1995, after completing field activities, seven soil samples were submitted forgeotechnical analyses. The soil sample test record, as shown below, indicates the analysesperformed. The analytical findings from these tests are summarized in Table 1 and consist of thefollowing parameters.

• Sieve Analysis - ASTM D422• Atterberg Limits - ASTM D4318• Moisture Content - ASTM D2216• Organic Content - ASTM D2974• Classification - ASTM D2487

Sieve Analysis

A sieve analysis is performed when a sample of dry soil is shaken mechanically through a series ofwoven-wire square-mesh sieves with successively smaller openings. The sieve analysis is useful indetermining grain-size distributions (i.e., grading), as well as the coefficient of uniformity andcoefficient of curvature. The Skinner soil samples tend to be characterized as well-graded sand, siltand clay; the grain size distribution reports are shown in Appendix B.

The coefficient of uniformity (CJ indicates the smaller the number, the more uniform the gradation.For example, a Cu = 1 is indicative of a soil with only one grain size. Very poorly graded soils, suchas beach sands, have Cu values of 2 or 3, while very well-graded soils may have Cu values of 15 orgreater. Cu values equal to or greater than 500 typically represent a range of particle sizes fromcobbles and boulders down to fine clays.

Another shape parameter that is often used for soil classification is the coefficient of curvature (Cc)A soil with a coefficient of curvature between 1 and 3 is considered to be well graded as long as theCu is also greater than 4 for gravel and 6 for sand. Description of Ce and Cu formulas are shown inAppendix C.

The following table represents Cu and Cc geotechnical findings from the buried lagoon supplementaltest borings:

GradationParameter

cu

cc

B-59

N.A.*

N.A.*

B-61

767.4

55.6

B-62

645.7

8.1

B-63

841.4

1.6

B-65

720

0.6

B-66

2660

3.2

*Note: See Appendix C for appropriate equations used in the calculation of Cu and CcN.A. indicates that no value for D10was obtained, thus no calculation was completed

n: *62680\wp'\svefeas.\v61 August 199:

Skinner LandfillButler County, Ohio SUt System Feasibility Investigation

The geometric mean for Cuand Cc were determined using the following calculations:

Cu = ((767.4)(645.7)(841.4)(720)(2660))1/5

= 956.0

while Cc =((55.6)(8.1)(1.6)(0.6)(3.2))1/5

= 4.2

These values indicate that the soils along the perimeter of the buried lagoon are non-uniform (i.e.,they have a wide range of grain sizes) and moderately well-graded (i.e., the proportion of each grainsize is approximately equal and varies smoothly). Soils with these characteristics typically have arelatively low porosity and low permeability because the voids between the larger particles are filledin by the smaller ones. Soils with low porosity and low permeability typically represent a poorenvironment for soil venting.

Atterberg Limits

The Atterberg limits indicate the engineering behavior of fine-grained soils as a function of watercontent in soil samples. The Atterberg limits, along with the natural water content, are importantitems in the description and behavior of fine-grained soils. Typically Atterberg limits are helpful inclassifying soils, because they correlate with the engineering properties of fine-grained soils.

Two Atterberg limit parameters were evaluated from the lagoon perimeter test borings. Theparameters were the Lower Limit (LL) and the Plasticity Index (PI). The PI is the range of watercontent where a soil is plastic, .while the LL is the lower limit of viscous flow. The PI and LL areplotted on a Casagrande's Plasticity Chart which is used for laboratory classification of fine-grainedsoils. A geometric mean obtained for the LL is 20.8, while the PI geometric mean equals 6.0 Thefollowing table indicates the values obtained for each appropriate sample:

Soil Boring

LiquidLimit (LL)

PlasticityIndex (PI)

B-59(14-161)

20.4

6.8

B-61(10-121)

23.0

6.3

B-62(14- 1 6')

20.2

4.9

B-63(16-20')

19.2

4.9

B-65( 18-22')

20.0

6.2

B-66(16-18')

22.5

7.3

By plotting these two parameters on Casagrande's Plasticity Chart, they indicate that the Skinnerborings are "Silty clays; clayey silts and clayey sands." An example of Casagrande's chart, with anindication of the Skinner LL and PI placement, is shown in Appendix E.

n: \62680\wp'\svefeas. w61 August ;' 'i >'"

Skinner LandfillButler Countv, Ohio SVE System Feasibility Investigation

Moisture Content

Another significant soil characteristic is the mass of water in the voids relative to the mass of solidsin the soil. Typically, the greater the moisture content the slower contaminant removal rates will be.The ratio of water mass to soil mass is called the moisture content. The geometric mean moisturecontent for the lagoon perimeter borings is 5.4 percent. Typically, soils exhibit a moisture range of10 to 20 percent. Since this moisture content of 5.4 percent is fairly low, it doesn't appear to be aconstraint to SVE applications.

Organic Carbon Content

According to C.W. Fetter's Contaminant Hydrogeology (Prentice-Hall 1981), many organiccompounds which are dissolved in groundwater can be adsorbed onto solid surfaces. The primaryadsorptive surface is the fraction of organic solids in the soil. The partitioning of a solute onto theorganic carbon content of a soil is almost entirely onto the organic carbon fraction if the organiccompound content is greater than 1 percent by weight. The following table indicates organic carbonvalues obtained for each appropriate sample:

SoilBoring

OrganicCarbon

B-59(14-16')

1.47%

B-61(10-12')

3.11%

B-62(14-16')

4.80%

B-63( 16-20')

3.92%

B-64(18-22')

6.40 %

B-65(18-22')

4.25 %

B-66(16-18')

2.46 %

The geometric mean obtained from the supplemental soil borings yielded a value of 3.44 percentSoils with a high organic carbon content have a high sorption capacity for VOCs and are moredifficult to remediate successfully with SVE. It appears that an organic carbon content of 3 44percent could have an impact on contaminant adsorption and hinder the effectiveness of a soil ventingsystem.

Soil Classification

In an effort to fully assess the soil particle characteristics, two soil classification systems were usedto evaluate the perimeter lagoon soils. The USCS classification was the first system to be reviewed,which indicated that a wide range of well-graded sediments was present. Materials ranged fromgravel-sand-silt-clay mixtures to sand-silt-clay mixtures. These classifications were determined usingsieve analysis data to quantify the appropriate particle sizes. Soils which cover this range of particlediameters will tend to minimize porosity and in effect, hinder the effectiveness of an SVE system

A second classification system called the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Schemewas used to evaluate a group of soils classified as "soil separates," which are defined as particles lessthan 2 mm in diameter. The USDA scheme is based on plotting various combinations of sand, silt,and clay. Appendix D shows the triangular coordinate diagram, used in the evaluation of sand, siltand clay combinations, which gives a ratio of the three constituents.

n:' 62680\wp\svefeas. w 61 August I')')5

Skinner LandfillButler County. Ohio____________________________________SVE System Feasibility Investigation

The evaluation of the supplemental test boring samples was very consistent, with all samples beingplotted as a sandy loam. According to the USDA definition, a sandy loam is a "soil material thatcontains 20 percent clay or less, the percentage of silt plus twice the percentage of clay exceeds 30,and 52 percent or more sand."

The designation of "sandy loam" (USDA) and gravel-sand-silt-clay mixture (USCS) for the buriedlagoon perimeter samples indicates the soils around the lagoon are more coarse grained than soilswithin and below the lagoon. Sediments obtained from within the buried lagoon were characterizedas silty clay during a prior lagoon investigation, which according to the USDA definition is a "soilmaterial that contains 40 percent or more clay and 40 percent or more silt." Both the USCS and theUSDA classification systems indicate that perimeter sediments range from gravel and sand to silts andclays. As previously mentioned, these well-graded perimeter soils typically are not conducive to SVEapplications due to the limited void space.

n:\62680\wp\svefeas.\v61 9 August.'"-


5.0 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT

In-situ vapor extraction, or soil venting, is considered to be a cost-effective remediation alternativefor permeable soils contaminated with volatile contaminants. Contaminants volatilize from the soilmatrix and are swept by the carrier gas flow (air) to the extraction well, treated and discharged. Thefive main factors that control the effectiveness of a venting system are:

1. Chemical composition of the contaminant (i.e., applicable Henry's Law Constants).2. Vapor flow rates through the unsaturated zone.3. Pressure drop induced by applying a vacuum.4. The flow path of carrier vapors relative to the location of the contaminants.5. Soil characteristics (i.e., void space, moisture content, organic carbon content).

The following subsections present the SVE system evaluation. The soil venting was evaluated usingthe United States Geological Survey (USGS) MODFLOW program and Hyperventilate, a USEPA-endorsed software guidance system created for vapor extraction applications. The computer-basedevaluations were performed to supplement the comparison of a literature search, as specified in theRDWP. This combined method provides more site-specific data and relevant information regardingthe feasibility of SVE than a solitary data comparison.

5.1 MODFLOW APPLICATIONS AND FINDINGS

The MODFLOW software was used to determine the pressure drops within the subsurface soils atvarious radii following application of a known vacuum. The pressure distribution and shape of thearea of reduced pressure indicates the potential performance of the system. Soil venting at theSkinner site was simulated using venting wells placed around the perimeter as discussed in theapproved RDWP.

The modeling was performed under transient conditions with simulated durations of 50 and 500 daysAs shown in Figure 3, a zone of 550 feet (length) and 70 feet (height) oriented along a west to eastcross-section was used as a grid system for modeling purposes. Figure 3 also represents a cross-section of the topographic features observed at the buried lagoon site. Based upon a perimeter SVEsystem and the prior knowledge of contaminant location, it has been determined that an effectiveradius of greater than 75 feet is needed to reach the contaminant zone.

A contrast in permeabilities has been documented between the buried lagoon (silty clay - Zone 2) andthe lagoon perimeter (sandy loam - Zone 1). This contrast, as shown in Figure 3, will have asignificant impact on the performance of an SVE system. For modeling purposes, these twocontrasting permeability zones are shown as being distinct with clear dividing lines. Based upon thecalculations to estimate gas permeabilities, as shown in Appendix F, the two zones were given a gaspermeability of 1.75 x 10"* ft/day (Zone 2) and 1.75 x 10'2 ft/day (Zone 1). Soils exhibiting low airpermeability are more difficult to treat with in-situ SVE technology. A specific storage of 0.02 wasused for the simulation, indicating a moderate-to-low volume of air released due to subsurfaceporosity and permeability constraints. A constant head boundary of (-)0.167 feet of water was

n:\62680\wp>svefeas.iv61 10 August 1995

Skinner LandfillButler Countv. Ohio SVE System Feasibility Investigation

assumed for all boundary cells (except for the cells above the bedrock), indicating that these boundarycells will not have limited head constraints during MODFLOW simulations.

Modeling was performed by inducing a vacuum at two cells (i.e., SVE well locations) along theperimeter of the lagoon as shown in Figure 3 (i.e., row 3, column 13 and row 5, column 42). Flowrates were input as 1.0 and 2.0 cubic feet per minute (cfin) per foot width of the cross-section. Thisgenerates a two-well total flowrate of 80 cfrn (scenario A) and 160 cfin (scenario B), respectively.The pressure drops calculated by MODFLOW-were then contoured using the graphics softwarepackage Surfer to visually plot the effective radius of influence. The lateral pressure drop that occursby applying a vacuum (ft H20) at a venting well is represented in Appendix G. This change inpressure defines the extent to which air flow will be induced through the contaminated soils

The following table represents the MODFLOW/Surfer parameters and findings:

Scenario

A

A

B

B

Time(days)

50

500

50

500

Vacuum(ftH20)

1

5

2

10

Flowrate(cfin)

80

80

160

160

Effective Radius(ft)

12.5

30

20

30

Based upon the data presented above and in Appendix G, which indicate the effective radius ofinfluence and pressure drop, it appears that soil venting from the perimeter cannot create sufficientvacuum in the direction of the buried lagoon to the produce air flow needed to remove contaminantsin the impacted zone. By reviewing Figure 3, which indicates the contrasting conductivities obsen. edin the lagoon area and in the perimeter region, we can determine the limited effectiveness of an SVEsystem. At 500 days of operation for either scenario, an effective radius of 30 feet is indicated unionwill have no impact on the zone of contamination centered in the lagoon. However, if the SVE ueilsare applied as a containment remedy along the perimeter of the buried lagoon (See Figure 4). it isestimated that, based upon an effective radius of 30 feet and a lineal distance of 700 feet, 12 wel lswould be required.

5.2 HYPERVENTILATE SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS AND FINDINGS

To illustrate the difficulty of creating sufficient air flow within the buried lagoon soils, Rust usedHyperventilate to determine the number of extraction wells that would be required if an SVE systemwere to be placed within the buried lagoon.

HyperVentilate is intended to be used for evaluating SVE as a remediation alternative; it is notintended to be a detailed SVE modeling or design tool. Soil permeability and contaminantconcentration data from prior investigations were used to develop a rough approximation of the

n: <62680\wp\svefeas.w61 11 August '.


system's desired and maximum removal rates. By using MODFLOW data regarding radius ofinfluence and vacuum rates, it is possible to evaluate SVE applications.

Assuming that the model parameters described above adequately represent the chemical and flowdynamic behavior of the site, the venting model can provide a component-by-component and totalcontaminant depletion rate. While the model is capable of predicting the venting time to remove aparticular volatile constituent, it is more important to compare the individual component depletionrates in a relative sense rather than in the absolute sense.

The data shown in Appendix H show how calculations and assumptions were addressed. The findingsof the Hyperventilate model indicated that a minimum of 84 SVE wells would be needed toremediate the buried lagoon. To accomplish the remediation, wells would need to be installed intothe buried lagoon itself. This presents a concern relative to installation and integrity of the low-permeability cap that will be installed as part of the Remedial Action. This number of wells wouldlikely compromise the integrity of the cap, causing infiltration into the buried lagoon. This givesadditional validation to the MODFLOWfindings which indicate that SVE is not a practical approachto the buried lagoon site.

Hyperventilate was also used to evaluate the feasibility of installing the SVE wells along the perimeterof the buried lagoon as a containment measure. Based upon the calculations provided in AppendixH, it is estimated that approximately 32 wells would be required to provide a containment functionThis is in contrast to the estimated 12 wells required based upon MODFLOW calculations Thedifference can be identified in the underlying principles of the different softwares. MODFLOW wasdesigned primarily to simulate hydrologic systems in the soil matrix. It has been modified to reflectair flow characteristics, but still is considered only an indicator of the potential for subsurface airflow,not as an SVE design tool. Likewise, HyperVentilate has certain limitations, including applicabilityfor containment as opposed to remediation. However, it is believed that HyperVentilate reflects therequired number of SVE wells more accurately \har\MODFLOW.

Regardless, it is believed that installation of 32 wells is not a practical application of SVE forcontainment. This argument is strengthened by the fact that the buried lagoon will be capped, anda groundwater interception system will be installed. These two measures effectively addresscontainment of the buried lagoon. Installation of the SVE system would be unnecessarily redundant

n:\62680\wp\svefeas.w6l 12 August 19V?

Skinner LandfillButler County. Ohio_____________________________________5KE System Feasibility Investigation

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the buried lagoon soils investigation, the geotechnical laboratory analysis and evaluationof the SVE applications, it appears that the buried lagoon site is not conducive to the use of SVEtechnology. Attempting to remediate the buried lagoon contamination by applying SVE technologyto the more coarse grained perimeter soils would short circuit a remedial system due to topographyconstraints and permeability contrasts. Other parameters which will cause difficulties in remediationpertain to high organic carbon content, as well as the fact that the buried lagoon is scheduled to becapped, thus hindering air flow and remediation. The following summarizes the SVE System FIfindings:

Geotechnical Laboratory Analysis

1. Sieve Analysis findings indicated that well-graded sediments were present at theperimeter of the lagoon. This means that soil particles cover a wide range ofdiameters from very fine to very coarse. With this range of particle sizes, void spaceare filled with fine grained materials, thus decreasing porosity and limiting theeffectiveness of vapor flow for an SVE remedial system.

2. Atterberg Limits testing results showed that soils on the perimeter of the lagooninclude silty clays, clayey silts, and clayey sands. This test is mainly used to evaluateclay soils. The data indicate that very fine particles are present in the SVE zone,which would hamper remediation.

3. Moisture Content results indicated an average moisture content of 5.4 percent Amoisture content range of 10 to 20 percent is considered normal. Generally, thegreater the moisture content the slower contaminant removal rates will be.

4. Organic Carbon Content testing results showed a geometric mean organic carboncontent of 3.4 percent. Soils with an organic carbon content of more than 1 percenthave a high sorption capacity for VOCs. This means the potential effectiveness ofSVE will be reduced.

5. Two soil classification test results showed that the soils on the perimeter of the buriedlagoon are well graded, ranging from fine-to coarse-grained sediments. Accordingto USCS particle size distribution charts, test results indicate that the buried lagoonperimeter soils are mainly silts and clays. According to the USDA classificationsystem, the sediments tested were considered a sandy loam. For both classificationschemes, this means that the fine-grained sediments found in the perimeter area willhave low porosity, thereby decreasing void spaces, and limiting SVE effectiveness

Evaluation of Soil Vapor Extraction Feasibility

1. MODFLOWComputer Software Applications and Findings:

n:"6268Q\\vp\svefeas.\v61 13 August

Skinner LandfillButler County, Ohio____________________________________SETT System Feasibility Investigation

a. MODFLOWwas used to evaluate the performance of an SVE system installedin the permeable soils around the west, south, and east sides of the buriedlagoon.

b. Modeling was performed for transient conditions of 50 and 500 days,c. Surfer software was used to contour the radius of influence and vacuum

conditions.d. AMODFLOWruntime equal to 500 days yields:

Q (flowrate) = 160 cfrnVacuum = 10 ft H2ORadius of influence £ 30 feet

e. To effectively remediate the buried lagoon, an SVE system located along thelagoon perimeter would require a radius of influence s 75 feet to removecontaminants.

2. Hyperventilate Computer Software Applications and Findings:a. Due to the ineffectiveness of a perimeter-based remedial approach, Rust

investigated an approach consisting of SVE wells being placed in the silty clayzone of the buried lagoon using a computer software package calledHyperVentilate. HyperVentilate was used to determine the number ofextraction wells required if the SVE wells were installed within the buriedlagoon. This determination provides a sense of the ease (or difficulty) ofcreating adequate air flow within the buried lagoon soils,

b. The evaluation indicated a minimum of 84 SVE wells would be required in theburied lagoon.

c. Further, the evaluation indicated that a minimum of 32 SVE wells would berequired in the perimeter soils for containment.

Rust's Conclusions and Recommendations

Attempting to remediate the buried lagoon contamination by applying SVE technology to the morecoarse grained perimeter soils is not feasible because adequate air flow through the contaminatedzone can not be achieved with this approach. Factors precluding effective air flow include:

• Topography constraints - Because the ground surface on the outside of the perimeter(i.e., the "clean" side) slopes away from the SVE system, there will be less resistanceto air flow, consequently, there will be more air flow coming from the perimeter andless from the lagoon (i.e., the target remediation zone).

• Permeability contrasts - Because there is a permeability contrast of 3 to 4 orders ofmagnitude between the buried lagoon soils and the lagoon perimeter soils, thetendency for air to flow into the system from the contaminant zone (i.e., from theburied lagoon) will be minimized.

• Effects of other remedial actions - Because the buried lagoon will be capped, therewill be even greater resistance to air flow through the target remediation zone, further

n:'<62680\wp*jivefeas.w61 14 August 1995


hindering remediation. In addition, the cap and the groundwater interception systemwill combine to create an effective method to capture and contain contaminants,obviating the need for an SVE system as a containment measure.

In addition to these effects, the relatively high organic carbon contents of the soil will have a highadsorption capacity for the VOCs within the subsurface, thereby inhibiting the effectiveness of SVE.

No further evaluation of soil vapor extraction for remediation of the buried lagoon soils isrecommended.

n:(62680\wp\svefeas.w6l 15 August 1995

* * ^ \ Iw o IVNV -\

>^HV ' \] !"X' IH

. ~^,. ~ts.x =i •* ;! //<y i^ \-\Vv "'v." >i // \ \*<L "*?**• -sa:ary.i ,/.— * !

•xll

FIGURE 1SITE LOCATION MAPPROJECT 72680.300

SVE F E A S I B I L I T Y STUDYSKINNER LANDFILL

WEST CHESTER, OHIO

N

FIGURE 2BURIED LAGOON TEST BORING

CONFIGURATIONPROJECT 72680.300


WEST CHESTER, OHIO

A Af

rco

690 ~ - - -

LEGEND

ZONE 1

K/'V'-'' z°NE 2'/ / ' /'.

INACTIVE CELLS

NO FLOW 30UNORY

SOIL VENTING WELL

CONSTANT HEAD 3CUNORY

L I N E D I V I D I N G ZONES 1 ANC 2

FIGURE 3SOIL VENTING MODFLQW SIMULATION

F I N I T E DIFFERENCE G R I D SYSTEMPROJECT 72680.300


WEST CHESTER, OHIO

727.

APPROXIMATE Llt^E OF SVE WELLSFOR CCNTAII ENT

FIGURE 4APPROXIMATE LINE OF

SVE WELLS FOR CONTAINMENTPROJECT 7268O. 300

SVE FEASIBILITY STUDYSKINNER LANDFILLWEST OCSTER, OHIO

TABLE 1GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES RESULTS

Skinner LandfillWest Chester, Ohio

BoringID

B-59B-6IB-62B-63B-64B-65B-66

SampleInterval(ft BUS)M lo 1610 lo 1214 lo 1616 Io20I8lo 22It Iu2216 lo 18

Laboratory Test (Method)

Grain-Size ( ASTM D422)/Mosituie Content (ASTM D22 16)Grain-Size ( ASTM D422)/Mosilure Cuiilenl (ASTM 1)22 16)Grain-Size ( ASTM l)422)/Mosiluie Conlenl (AS TM »22 16)Grain-Size ( ASTM O422)/Mosilure Conlenl (ASTM 1)22 16)

N/AGrain-Size ( ASTM lM22yMosilure Cunlenl (ASTM O22 16)Grain-Size ( ASTM D422J/Mosilure Conlenl (AS TM 1)22 1 6)

usesSoil

ClassllkallonSC SM

CC-GMcc - (;MSC-SM

N/ASC - SM

GC:

Soil Description

Iliuwii «nd gray silly, clayey sandDrown silly, clayey gravel willi sand

Silly clayey gravel wild sandBrown silly, clayey sand willi gravel

Yellow clay, silly w/ linieslone fraginenUUroxvn silly, clayey sand willi gravel

Clayey gravel willi sand

MoistureConlenl...(%)_

9.52 84281N/A723.9

Percent Passing

MIO78227

34.465N/A65

40.4

#4062.519522.9488N/A52333

#20044314715.731.6N/A35524.1

OrganicCarbonConlenl

1473 1 14803^926.404 2 5246

N:\SKINNER\SVE.WK4

APPENDIX A

Soil Borehole Logs

SOIL BOREHOLE LOG

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Chester, OhioSkinner Landfill - West' DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger BORING NO.

B-591 i SHEET

' SAMPLING METHOD:

; Sampler2.0 ft. Split-Spoon I 1 of 2

! DRILLING

! ! START 1 RNISH

NORTH

DATUM ft. mslEAST

WATER LEVEL

TIME

I I

i !

DATE i i i i

ELEVATION 735.02 ' CASING DEPTH '. I |

TIME

1550OATE

10-21-94

TIME !

1655 jDATE !

10-21-94!

DRILL RIG 1 SURFACE CONDITIONS

Vertical BEARING

SAMPLE HAMMER TORQUE FT.-LBS

K - i CC-i SAMPLEA F

NUMBERun

^JKCL— f*l

- ; : i '§|; ! *\ \i

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS 13o

OoO

- ° 16 ^16 fvXil- ! 10- 1 3

19

14

- 3 ' 1418-

— 4 ————1214

I' ; J12"

5 38~ : 14- 12- 1 2_ ! 12"

— 8 | — - ——

7

:• I—— 10

11

«M.

r

IS'

6107116"

850/1

A ™

14 10~ 10- 15 15

Ar^vSi54'X)fN/"S

OO,i/^\X

xf/ /*v ^ 1X. )x/^7 <rxjX /f^v' NiO*N>r X ^X>i i\/X\|yX s

%j///

W//SY

ft•.'.•.•

'"'"'""

'W*.Wb,y//7//</////

WMPyfffiV/w*/////,

1 Light yellowish brown SILT (MLI. damp, non-plastic, trace

( gravel. 30% sand. 10 % clay (FILL). ! • :; —

1 SS ! —\\| Light yellowish brown SILT (ML), damp, non-plastic, trace

!

jI limestone gravel. 20% clay, 1 0 % sand (FILL). |

. 2 :SS

\

! : ! : :!

-

Light yellowish brown CLAY (CD, moist, plastic, 20% silt, : |I 10% sand (FILL). |

3 SS

]

1

j

i

Light yellowish brown CLAY (CL). moist, plastic, 20% silt, ]| 10% sand (FILL).

4 SS

\

Light yellowish brown CLAY (CD moist, plastic, 20% silt, 10%I sand.

5

U Light yellowish brown SAND (SW), wet. fine-grained. 1 5%sand, 15% clay. ^

| Gray CLAY (CD, moist, plastic, limestone fragments, 10% silt,\ 10% sand.

ru11 Gray CLAY (CL), moist, plastic, limestone fragments, 10% silt.1 10% sand.1

1 ?

J,1 Gray CLAY (CL), moist, plastic, limestone fragments, 10% silt.

M

SS

SS

SS

1-1

i

II

5

i_—

-~1 _

-

i

i

- !i ' —

1

iCOp

08UJ

Continued Next Page

in

5 <- Q

r rr J T ~ I ~ T 1 1M to W M »•o u> co ~J c. .

_L_L...l 1 1 l—i-1— L-

•- - - - - - '- ————— '

LOGGED BY RUST E&l .....

DATE 5/18/95 ...

r r i i "| - i ~ r i iJ K) K> M f» UI ^ (A> t

LLJ..I.. J_ i_ j_ j ._ . j_ .

_ . _ _ - _ _ - .— —— -_ - _ ^ _

_ - . - . . . _ - . . . _ ... .. ...

CHK'D BY

1 1 1 1 III 1 1j ro ro — -j -• o u> c

mZO0

CDo3)Zo5

00O-nmrnH

...L_l. l.._L. 1 1 J _!_! ._

- - • - ----- - - - - - -

FS

i r r i0 ~J c

ui0 0

Illllllto

^6- 51 5*3 2id c n Ar£ S «

to 'C (/)<o 1n >D m

^R ,-.

2 58 30 0-

.2 W. w

9 •—- oo g

? i<o rnw C/l0 -Icr o« 5;a

o p°- </>o"

UI

_i..l 1 J

... —— —

1 1

n ui

*1 a>

\v\,v '

00

UI<n

1 . 1

— -

DEPTH IN FEET(ELEVATION)

BLOWS/6 INON SAMPLER(RECOVERY)

SOILGRAPH

-

0mtnO2 </)-o >H 2O "oT v. f~^ > m-n 0 |

> COH mm 3Jpr~

SAMPLERAND BIT .

CASING TYPE

BLOWS/FOOTON CASING

WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %PLASTICLIMIT %SPECIFICGRAVITY

DRILLING CONT

>£e1m-t0

1m

JJ

•,c»

R

ro

^n3.s

IP>azCl

oJlr~I-

O

0m

OZoHO7to

O

i,t3

mm

-iO

vjGJ01bro

oV(A

O0rn

1

. —

_»010

W**

o.

$

zoa

m(A"

O

rTt

——

io*j

HSm

——

Ol

.4

InUI

_ _

Is?

———

5

Z

__

5™

§

__

(A0)3•on

0r=o

__

UI

1zo

3ooro0;t(At>5?oo0

K)

0

ro

V3

o3"SiIB

O3"5'

00UI(O

_ _

(A

z

rn

ZO

or>H

Z

rT.3

10r"V3

S;•nM

0

iX

3oo

Xo_o

(/>««

co<p

31

ft

f f\^/r

OBHB

r"0000

mIOr-mr"OQ

SOIL BOREHOLE LOG

SITE NAME AND LOCATION Skinner Landfill - WestChester, Ohio

NORTH EAST

DATUM ft. mSl ELEVATION 734.51

DRILL RIG

ANGLE Vertical BEARING ————

SAMPLE HAMMER TORCUE FT.-LBS

B 2 ?£>'

£8 s*55 ^x

JIB81

ORILLNG METHOD: HollOW-SteiTI AUflef 1 BORING NO.

B-61 !! SHEET |

SAMPLING METHOD: 2.0 ft. SpUt'SpOOn 1 OF 1

Sampler DRILLINGSTART l FINISH

WATER LEVEL ! j TIME TIME ''

TIME | 0830 0920 'DATE ' ! DATE DATE

CASING DEPTH j 10-21-94 10-21-94

SURFACE CONDITIONS

———————————————————————————————————— : —————————— >^,; <f

i

SAMPLE NUMBER £ (_^gi

AND I0" i SoDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS :«< < 3§

CJ CO ;! i

t-0

# ul_ ' O

5O'O2l^j5!Q.CC Q§03 Uo. 3to O

0 8 "v M13 <X- . 13 *v ,- 17 N/\,\_ 15" <( A:; '

• ' 22 V >22 < X0(

- 3 12 <5<'— 10" </^

26 -^' Ni20 'vX. '1 5 ;; <5< »

6 X 'f1 30 -'x ^50/3 K' X >

- 7 2" v<i33 x>

50/4 <^ Xi1

~ 9 *" O<]

10 : -. s^,&-26 VNj20 <Vjl

~ 11 16 Xx^<- 11 20 \XA

i '- 47 .

[,3 "

: i- ; ,'— 14 ——— iLLl-ti ——

- 15 '

| Brown CLAY (CD, moist, plastic, 20% silt and limestonefragments (FILL). i ~"

i 1 SS J

Pale brown SILT (ML), dry, non-plastic, 50% clay, 50% ilimestone fragments (FILL). i ~~

2 .SS J

' ,

', j

I

Pale yellow CLAY (CD, dry, plastic, 20% silt, 50% limestone _ i i ! . '-£fragments (FILL). I i

] 3 SS ' ; . ; '

1 : l l '

LIMESTONE (LS) fragments, trace fine sand and silt (FILL). '

4 SS

'• —1

LIMESTONE (LS) fragments (FILL). ! J

5 SS : ~;

LIMESTONE (LS) fragments, some fossiliferous fragments . i(FILL).

6 SS ~

tLight yellowish brown SAND (SW), saturated, fine- to

! medium-grained, 1 0% silt. ~7 SS

1END OF BORING AT 1 4.0 FEET.

; ! }

i ' i ! p1 T

1 :

l i .

! '•• \ \' ii i ii : 5

' Ul! ;§ J; i i « 1

.! - i » ^1 ' ^\ ITjOJ

^ ^™«^ 4

. j a

SOIL BOREHOLE LOG

^mr^umm.^T,™ Skinner Landfill - West DRILLING METHOD: HollOW-Stem Auger BORING NO.

Chester Ohio °"SHEET

62

SAMPLING METHOD: 2.0 ft. Split-SpOOH 1 OF 1

Sampler ! DRILLINGI START

WATER LEVEL i I

TIME I

NORTH EAST DATE !

DATUM ft. mSl ELEVATION 731.27 CASING DEPTH! i

! TIME

! 1347i DATE

I 10-20-94

FINISH

TIME

1458DATE

10-20-94DRILL RIG '• SURFACE CONDITIONS

ANGLE VerticalSAMPLE HAMMER TORQUE FT -IBS '

\-Ul 7

S o?sX >CL -JUJ UJQ ~

2[£> l~-JCCWQ.UJ5)5>k<OSl/JO

*&

SAMPLE NUMBER !a:H'"i5UJ h"

5 | AND j|d| «<j l^zrn i ^^ ~ ! iuj

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS |w * < 2§l <g!$ (J

n-

J?i0 £

^0O

^'^ u— ~ 5 - ^

O 2;5 2|oJ c; Q_I _l:Q. _J|(/1 O

0

1

— 2—

__ 3

— 4"~

~ 5

— 6"~

r 7_: — 8

t! 9[_

it

' 1 1r—

h12j: 13I

| —I - .

-- 15

7 ;9 . ' . •0.2"). • /6 k_T_i i Yellow brown POORLY GRADED GRAVEL IGP), damp, 20% : ss

18"

616151712"

141816158"

192020220"

15

]88"

14233612"

65

1210"

:;;;| ,sui, ^U"A> sariu. / |i Pale yellow POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), dry, fine- to

• "• i

::;l,

1

Yellowish gray WELL GRADED SAND (SW), dry, 40% angular ; ' - !gravel, 10% silt. , _

• '• :A:

* * !•

— .

Yellowish gray WELL GRADED SAND ISW), dry, 30% coarse ! '(<1") gravel, 15% silt. "*

:: i s ! 3 ss

i_ , ;

— ;

X ' N| 1 No Recovery< X1 J ~">< MC X t ssv.' \ f

'^V7'

'//Mr

ma>W j'-

5l°-\r^> °

T 3 ti0= C

Ij

\

~— (

; — . ii

Yellowish brown CLAY (CL). damp, 40% sand, 5% silt. 10% i |fine gravel.

5 SS

\

WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW). dry, angular, 20% sand, 5%1 silt. Black CLAY (CL), moist. 20% sand.

6 SS

, Olive, black mottled POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), saturated,

( 30% gravel. 5% silt.

7

iJ

J

-j

——

__ 1

~i 1J ———————————————————————————— . ——————————— ; — |

END OF BORING AT 14.0 FEET. | _j! ~~*

:

J ,j

i

; '

I

: -

cc; p

TI u

i

! 5• ; - u

! Hii* in2 m

> 2i : i oi i.

* if

C lia H\j! i c

SOIL BOREHOLE LOG


DRILLING METHOD: HollOW-StCm AuQBt

SAMPLING METHOD: 2.0 ft. Split'SpOOfl

Sampler

WATER LEVEL

TIME

NORTH EAST | DATE

DATUM ft. mSl ELEVATION 733.86 [ CASING DEPTH j

i

1

BORMC NO.

B-63SHEET

1 OF 2

DRILLING

START

TIME

1545DATE

10-18-94

FINISH

TIME0952DATE

10-19-94DRH.L RIC i SURFACE CONDITIONS

ANGLE Vertical BEARING: SAMPLE HAMMER TORQUE FT.-LBS

it- I _ i; S 2 ;?£>i ™ $ «>5!£: _,' II ' i iM! ? S ;0«y W

• " • * ! * ? ? £DE (E

SAMPLE NUMBER

AND

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS

c,_ §o_i5 *~ u. 55

oO CD lo. =.-inn O

oU

0 > 10 ~, — •-15 ^^yfy

L ' i 28 tt/m1 \ 12- |Pf1 2 ———— /vr^r-

. 18 | : i ,1 2 : ! i ! \

c. ;r -)- 4

: '" i L^ : I M- 10 ;; .- 20 ; •;,L 8- ; : i

e ' ' ; !

j : 12F : 12 ::> ; u- ; 8" H: 25 ! -p4

25 ^r 9 . 3«'2 o.g- > 1C" - nM,1 ' ; e ^ oi- i & o |-10 ; B ^c

r ; 10 ^ o ^ Su ,, ! 12 i or 18 ir°sL 4" P0MF IN" ->°I ' * e ^^ A CI 3 0r 12 5 0°i" 13 20 z°t\r 23 °oc

h 2" boI , . \ o c; 14 4 ••••••\

r i 1B ::::::/- 15 ! 19 .'. .'.

( Dark yellow CLAY (CD, dry. 30% silt.1

Pale yellow SILT (ML), dry, non-plastic.

2

"j Iron oxide staining.

3

Pale yellow SILT (ML), dry, non-plastic, trace fine sand.ilI

4

\

Gray limestone GRAVEL (GW), horizontal partings between 1/4I i n c h gravel.

5

I

Yellow brown SILT (ML), dry. ^/ Limestone GRAVEL (GW), dry.

rLimestone GRAVEL (GW), dry.

' Light greenish gray WELL GRAD£- 5AND (SW), damp, 20%fine- to medium gravel.

SS

ss

SS

ss

S3

ss

ss

:|

._

—

:

_

-

1

,

i

1

u_

>•CD

O

Continued Next Page

> £a ~Z.

O <-> Q

SOIL BOREHOLE LOG

SITE NAME AND I

Chester, Ot«^»-n«M fikinnor t anHfill - West DRILLING METHOD: HollOW-Stem Auger BORWGNO.

•MO B-lSHEET

33

SAMPLING METHOD: 2.0 ft. Spllt'SpOOn 2 OF 2

NORTH

DATUM ft.

DRILL RIG

ANGLE Vei

i Sampler DRILLINGSTART 1 FINISH

WATER LEVEL | ; TIME

TIME ! ; 1545

EAST DATE i : DATE

TIME0952DATE

msl ELEVATION 733.86 I CASING DEPTH i 10-18-94 ' 10-19-94 !I SURFACE CONDITIONS

rtical BEARING —— !

SAMPLE HAMMER TORQUE FT.-LSS ! n-

DEP

TH I

N F

EET

(ELE

VATI

ON

)

BLO

WS

/6 I

NO

N S

AMPL

ER(R

ECO

VER

Y) : SAMPLE NUMBER K>_ £ %% *.£ it7_r— C. O ~ : &•

-XO "~ U.</> ; ,_;

o< AND l^i^o o:5 #H#

° DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS ^<3| 5511^5| O i CO > ^ il n -J ——

l—1 O

- 15 : 20

16 • 6- ; 10

_ 4"

_ 18 68

~ 19 20

_ 6"

— 20 — - —

~ 18~ , ' 20- 2 6_ 8"

98

- 9- 16_ 10"

^ *

I 25 !

; — 26

~ 27

— 28

I 29

30

:•:• •:''.. 3 ^s, j -

i ! : ill Olive SILT (ML), moist, odor, non-plastic, 2% rounded gravel. j

M v9 !ss j :; • • ; ; > J :: 11 Greenish gray SILT (ML), moist. 20% clay, 10% sand. 5% : : :'•.' ' . - i rounded gravel. ; '• ;

ii ' ' r1 0 ss: I • |

: i • ! I i :

I-! -'.t • Olive grading to black WELL GRADED SAND (SW), moist to ;•!• '.•'l\>' wet. 20% silt and 30% gravel. : ~ '• ;5 liiii" ss :X •!!' i • '• ;• ;-| | Free product; black water Below product.''.' '."* '! ! i — 1

X :;||i2 jss! ~

$ ::f1 : 1END OF BORING AT 24.0 FEET. _j

I

. 1

i J

I I i —

J! I

UL

[

: ^lo

cr.F

nBY

RU

ST

E&

l

DAT

E

5/1

8/9

5

...

. C

HK

'DB

o3

5

2nK

•a&9

T r ~r-rnr i | i r i rUl A W M -» C

Mg 00 " M M U « » U U -•i -, • O 4* t^> O i K> 0» *^ "^J

"S fe^xS^S^vl O>

0 T 2>

§ «• e.i:k 518 " s-• ~n r-»

£ ego • -<* 0** c

Q.53

3

vt5

Ul

<A

k

f83o

(A (A(A (A

II 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 .. 1 1 1

——— ..... .._.... ——— _...

- ID 0>

°j ID 0 U W

^xS^^—_^_^--—---'LUl

s s.o <•3 -e

- i1IA j

3o

PSo

a.•23

3

V)

o

Ul

IA

r*0o

(A(A

I . I I I

----- -- ———— -

r rr i ~o -J a

"r*, «» u -• -»™ -• 0) (J O

\,/\/\yV/^^=^~-^^.

*

-to

~ 3

O1

or;a.uTJ

•D0)(A

O

in

u)S-'oo^u1O33M

(A<A

1 1 1 1

.... . .... —— ...

"I"! 1 1II 01 *

". ^ M - U

S/X/N/N//y^v' V^\/^\ / vv/ \ /^~T- — -^-~u

-ro

E 4• 3

O^

or~

a.a

nTJ

Sp

Ul

v>

On^»|O33IA

(A(A

J__l_J_J_.

_... — . ..

r "[- r i> • W N

° M fr W <°

xxxx\S\s\S W

_ — -""™- ^K.

-CD

E|

O£

0

a.Dl

T>

135T

Ul

(A

Oo^D)a33M

(ACA

1 1 1 1

_.... .

• r ii iJ -• O

Ul» 9 S -

KXXX\^~\/\y\/T^=»— =crrz

--CD

EloJ^•<or;3o(A

x>01(A

O

O

0n

Q)103n3IA

(A(A

...I. U 1 ..1

-- ————— - —— -



SOILGRAPH

OmCOn3J CO

3 1O TJ2 J* mO 2 -z

S S> CDH mrn 3J3(—CO

SAMPLERAND BIT

CASING TYPE

BLOWS/FOOTON CASING


S

SiSm

Om

r

%

?O

£8fiL

o

11

o9ra

SU

RFA

CE

CO

N

o3

CO

o>25

Jt

M"

VA

TIO

N

s

ING

DEPTH

i

_,O

8*oS

Z

O

-

?

o

i

—

sMin

uUl

139

"-

I

2-*

i

(A

«5

o»-z

<PLING

ME

THO

D

K>b

*•o^

1U)o0o

_,

9

CO

1

(

9-

T 'T r

', ii ,3 i-. <3 !

1

00A\IS

A

3Efc

n^E3

3*

iIAS3

IB•n

»

X3•

SoXr~LIN

G M

ETHO

D:

Zi,O$

J?q

J*

IQA

8a

S

LUUG6D BY RUST E&l

DATE 5/18/95 CHK'D BY FS c DRILLING CONTR

eno00omIOmr-OQ

SOIL BOREHOLE LOG

SITE NAME AND LOCATIO

Chester, Ohio

NORTH

DATUM ft. msl

N Skinner Landfill • West

EAST

ELEVATION

DRILL RIG

ANGLE Vertical SEARING ————

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger

SAMPLING METHOD: 2.0 ft. Split-SpOOH

Sampler

BO RING NO.

B-64SHEET ,

2 OF 3 :

DRILLING I

START RNISH j

WATER LEVEL !

TIME i

DATE !

CASING DEPTH i i

SURFACE CONDITIONS

TIME

0925TIME

1435DATE ! DATE i

~^ 10-20-94 h 0-20-94


DEP

TH I

N F

EET

(ELE

VA

TIO

N)

BLO

WS

/6 I

NO

N S

AMPL

ER(R

ECO

VER

Y)

SOIL

GR

APH

i L K !SAMPLE NUMBER e j ^ o o .

|LljL_i ^^ • U fc (

AND s0" r 2oDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS ^ < '. 2 1 ,o m

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T %

;

rr

§1 PLAS

TIC

LIM

IT %

: I-2O

' U

iCt 3o>! d>"$ 5C. 01 Qwo

- 15

r 17i-— 18

19

— 20

I 21

— 22

r 23r— 24

~ 25I

-26p

I _

27i

— 28

I 29

• 30

Jx/ A'2 0 i j j ! j26 . j ;12" ; i

1 6 i - ; .1 8 , .22 ; :'2 4 ! '1 2 " i i ! , '

1 e "/////A17 #/ty26 %M32 '/,'Sfi

16 ;•:•:•:19 ;•!•!•!•26 X;X19 'X'Xi

is :•:•:•:17 •:•:•:•17 X;X

18 JX;X19 |X-X4* !•:•:•:•i* ...

4 :•:•:•:a •:•:•:•26 Xx32 :•:•:•

8 SS -

Pale yellow SILT (ML), moist, non-plastic, 10% clay, 1 5% fine' sand and limestone fragments (FILL). ~~

i 9 SS j ~i\ ; ~

11 Pale yellow CLAY (CD. moist,

,'! fragments (FILL).

Ihou

1

plastic, 20% silt with limestone

ss ~2

j Brown CLAY ICL), damp, plastic. 15% silt with limestonefragments. i ~~ '

11 SS ~" ~i ; '1 i ~

Gray SAND (SW), dry, non-plastic, fine- to medium-grained, _j| trace limestone gravel. ~

[12 SS J

-i i :1 Gray SAND (SW), dry, non-plastic, fine- to medium-grained, '/' trace limestone gravel. ~"i

I 13 SS -

! -Gray SAND (SW), dry, non-plastic, fine- to medium-grained,

/ 10% silt. 30% fine gravel.

I 14 ss ;

Gray SAND (SW), dry, noo-plastic, fine- to medium-grained, iI 30% fine gravel. ~j

I 15 |SS ~i

i> :

inu_

1

i

CO

i pu

3Ul

H

=" m> 00CO ^

i Q inUJ

i O UJi o i-o <Continued Next Page

SOIL BOREHOLE LOG

SITE NAME AND LOCATION Skinner Landfill - WestChester. Ohio

DRILLING METHOD: HoNOW-Stem AUQBr j BORING NO.

B-li SHEET

S4

SAMPLING METHOD: 2.0 ft. SpHt'SpOOn 3 OF 3

Sampler : DRILLMG

! START

WATER LEVEL 1 1

TIME 1

NORTH EAST DATE ! !

DATUM ft. mSl ELEVATION ! CASING DEPTH '• I

! TIMEi 09251 DATE1 10-20-94

FINISH

TIME

1435DATS

10-20-94DRILL RIG I SURFACE CONDITIONS

ANGLE Vertical BEARING

! SAMPLE HAMMER TORQUE

; LU UJ

FT.-LBS| !_; tu s

UJ Su. O: z t-~~ <Cr >i_ tu

2 Q£ —

5<oSwu

SAMPLE NUMBER

5 < AND« £

! UJ

O.GC)_ >.^fgj *""

t°irfz —

: i :oi: #ist co j (_: .> O i JC UJIQ #!— cF?_, UJ u. ,~ . I f — .

i

J ictDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS ^SH'lpi iiu) O:

ouo

ccQ

30

I 31

L-.

!

I 33

^ 35

;—

— 36

< —

37

, _

i

~ 39

[—40r—

i. 41

!-42

r 43L—

• — 44

. 45

68 :13 !14 ;10"

s182632 ;12"

10 :15 :

323612" i

818 •36428" i

48 ;14 '.188"

4 ]g

9 113 ;8 *

i

:.••,:;.

*

*

--;;:

i:..

;•.

j Gray to dark gray SAND (SW), damp, fine- to coarse-grained.i 25% silt, 10% fine gravel.

f ie;.i

1 Gray SAND (SW), dry, non-plastic, fine- to medium-grained,\, trace gravel.

f 1 7

1 Gray and pale yellow SAND (SWI, damp, fine- to>, medium-grained, 15% silt and trace fine gravel.

I 18

/\1 Gray SAND (SW), damp, fine- to medium-grained, 20% fine

U gravel, odor.il

19

V:i

Gray SAND (SW), moist, fine- to medium-grained, 20% silt.' trace gravel, odor.

A"

Gray to dark gray SAND (SW), moist, fine- to coarse-grained,i 1 0% silt, trace gravel, odor.I ,, Saturatedt •''

f\

END OF BORING AT 42.0 FEET.

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

I—

~— .

_

— •

~™

-

--— .

__

~~

1

i

05u.

>o

O

V)

CC

13O

inS?CO

SOIL BOREHOLE LOG

SITE NAME AND LOCATK

Chester, Ohio™ Skinner Landfill - West DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger

i

I| SAMPLING METHOD: 2.0 ft. Split-SpOOH

! SamplerI' WATER LEVEL ; I

i TIME i i | i

NORTH EAST i DATE ' 1

DATUM ft. mSl ELEVATION 733.01 CASING DEPTH j

BORING NO. ,

B-65 |j SHEET : , !

1 OP 2DRILLING

i START FINISH: I !

TIME TIME '

1520 1632DATE DATE

10-25-94 10-25-94DRILL RIG ! SURFACE CONDITIONS

ANGLE Vertical BEARING ——— i


5 | ?£> '; SAMPLE NUMBER a+j £• °i"- O (jjjJ K z i Lutl £ O £

; = |11|ii: AND g|-p' £ i :m|£ ° : DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS \M< < 2§

o-! i zO

r o "> i

0 3 )/N| | SILT (ML), dry, 20% clay, 5% angular gravel (FILL). : , ,

- 12 X A Jss

2 12 V Nl ' SILT (ML), dry, 30% subangular gravel, 10% sand (FILL).32 <X;,|

~ 3 33 A-!; 2 :ss ; -36 VV, : i -

__ 10" £' V ' ;

' 12 sx'"%50/4 '< X

* S -X.

~ X "~ 6 __ X;*

! 50,5 S^ Ax

i 3" < x'7 ; :< y"

y21 i22 ;

~ 9 22 : !:- * 20

i '" 50/0 |t 3"i~ 1 •

11 | !—— 1

"~" !

r | u 1r 13 ! 30- 34 !

* i ! ' '

3 i ' i i— 1 e 1 ft : ! i I

» . ' ;J^ ss. -"\l• v ___i !

: _

In

I | SILT (ML), dry, 10% clay, 5% sand, 5% fine, rounded gravel.\r j

i 5 ss -\ ii \ ~"

i

\ 'V,V c cej ; 6 : 00 !

l\ ! 'n ~

Moist, non-plastic.

:S ' ss :\, SILT (ML), damp. 20% sand, 5% rounded gravel, 5% clay.x :

1 [

i

1

tou.

[ !

•

i !j !

^ i a! p

j4

a; ^

i 8: ! 1 «1 1- ———— - * ^1 ! • II

Continued Next Page

SOIL BOREHOLE LOG

StTE NAME AND L

Chester, Oh

NORTH

DATUM ft. 1

DRILL RIG

.T,™ .Skinner L.nrifiii - w«t omu.w METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger a.liO

3RMO NO.

B-65SHEET

SAMPLING METHOD: 2.0 ft. Split-SpOOn 2 OF 2 :Sampler DRILLMG

START FINISH

WATER LEVEL I ;

TIME i ]

EAST DATE

TJSl ELEVATION 733.01 i CASING DEPTH i

TIME i TIME1520 I 1632DATE I DATE

10-25-94 10-25-94! SURFACE CONDITIONS '

ANGLE Vertical BEARING —— ^SAMPLE HAMMER TORQUE FT.-LBS „.

? ^ °*UJ|g 5Jg£

SAMPLE NUMBER a+_X iuj—

5 < : AND |Sw § ' ill

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS w<

CA

SIN

G T

YPE

BLO

WS/

FOO

TO

N C

ASIN

G

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T %

3 3

H-zOUo

«#!-£ -

i3;U5O ~

- 15 19U 10"

i i 7~ fl

15"

13 19-

19

10

~ 21 ^

_ 12"

~ 23

—— 24 ;

I 25

' — 26LI

r 27"• I

— 28 ,

U 29

30

I ' i i f ' / 8 ss

j i j ' i A: : :[ i POORLY GRADED SAND (SP). moist, fine-grained, interbedded

: \\j\ with thin strings of medium to coarse, rounded gravel.: : - ' S > SS

':•.:•• \: V !

J i l O ^SSI-!,'. WELL GRADED SAND (SW), moist.

•'•[_]•;-r| Saturated. :

•*"ll 11 SS

|::F iEND OF BORING AT 22.0 FEET.

i

J

~i

-

-

—

10U.

VCDQ

X; U

5Ul

ij in• 0^1

" si a !^

- in

———————— ^ a

ooT

=icn

7a

T)»

n

n~p rr~rin It u

ss- qss;•;•!•!•;•;•;•:•;•;•;•-" i-l -

0 <D <b H3 5 P•o • r-

' S

S Io 0W (/>

P Iu Or* i/>

§3M

•_

O

Sf

o

£

aaa.

<aV)

1 1 1 1 1 1

-i-p-T-r.-M -• C

1

-- ———————————————————————————— - ————— -

a

O (A5 f—< — iA ^

* 2#-c

9 op. »'6"S

. T)

U

S

K>O

<

roo

MC

oc3a.8.

u>0)

j 1 1 1 1 1

—-,-,- , r-|-r | i [ iri i v m—>

_. _. _ <n.ai.uo . *» .^^»^| . £ U M

- - - ; - - - - - - - - - ---• -

Ol 4> U M

2 2 5 T W0 ° 3 r-5 -o 3- H

u 3. * Sc 3 u> C? « ? -o * Co.c S -23 C

2. -s S

< m 3

o

(1a

3(AC

u3iacQ)

(O

O

(/> (A U) (/>U) (/) (A U)

- i . .i_i. I-...LL.I...I. L i 111 i i -.1 A

i i r r"

N, M 0 Kl

—— ._:=-_ ,..=_

tA|—— I_sa.

GJ0

aa>n

OD

o^V)0)

a.

(A

I...1..1 1



SOILOnArn

Om00O3J 00~o >H 2o ?2 > mCJ ^^ ^p

CS H> caH mm 333)J>r~

SAMPLER^ANQBILCASING TYPE

BLOWS/FOOTON CASING


u>>CS>X

m3DHO3D

Cm

n(A

r*~K

<n3.&

>2O

—

O9

i-

3

VI

-nnOl

o0f.0H0zc/>

| OA

TUM

ft

<2_

m

Hiro2

CASIN

G D

ET

H 1

—

i NO

RTH

m

O

Si

— -

SioV5 au>

33A zM >•-• f(P S

O °?. 5o gi(A

3n

3a.=

nS

m

—

i W

ATER LEVEL !

S gS *

™* H

ai Jo

! S

TAR

T

TJ

1

Sampler

oaCO

SAMPLIN

G M

ETH

OO

tobftCO

coQg3

$m

Tl

M

i DR

ILLING

METHC

p

XO.o"1

Ir(O^

BORING

NO.

B-l

OJO)

uu.MUBY RUST E&l

DATE 5/18/95

DRILLING CONTR

CHK'D BY FS

COOi—CDOmIOm

O

SOIL BOREHOLE LOG


NORTH EAST

DATUM ft. mSl ELEVATION 732.64

DRILL RIG

ANGLE Vertical BEARING ————

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger BI3RMQ NO. I

B-66SHEET

SAMPLING METHOD: 2.0 ft. SpHt-SpOOO 2 OF 2Sampler DRILLING i

START FINISH

WATER LEVEL I | ;

TIME '' I | 1

DATE - 1 1 !

TIME TIME

0925 1350DATE I DATE :

;

CASING DEPTH i '• 10-25-94 10-25-94! SURFACE CONDITIONS

! . i -- • - i ISAMPLE HAMMER TORQUE FT.-LBS : tr

£ - ! E-UJ ? —OJ >>*• ° «s!25i z2 £ 3>5>: 5 £

Si'lgl!O i !

1 ;

SAMPLE NUMBER gj^lgi #i-lia *~ ', U- (/} ; ^

AND ||i" i"! E|DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS '^ < : 2§ ^1: o . « o ,|g

- 15 , is ; \- | «• ! H

16 ~ ——— ("^ 11 : P

12 : j18 ! 2 ; |

50/4 :

r "o I*° 49 1

50/2 . !',7- ' ill

: " ): — 22 —— = — t~r*?-

tyW/\

j 22 /d' ': -~ : 30 ; ; . . . . (

L 2 7 ! ^ ; - ; : :

i '8 : ; - ; :~ I 17 : \

L 29 15 ; ; : . ;i 30 i i : ' . : •

8

li-J Z

OL)0

y# -£ ?w t i3 | =ja! jSi § 3

SS

WELL GRADED SAND (SW), damp, 5% silt, 5% fine,: s u b r o u n d e d gravel.

9 SS

Damp, no silt. i

10 SS

11 SS

1| CLAY (CD, moist, 5% silt, 10% fine to coarse, rounded gravel,

2% sand.Sand seam at 22.5 feet with black staining. ..

12 oo

i

13 SS

CLAY (CD, dry, 10%-silt, 10<*b gravel. x-jI POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), wet, 20% silt.

14 SS

Very thin stringer of coarse sand at 27.5 feet.

POORLY SORTED SAND (SP). wet to saturated, medium tocoarse gravel.

15 SS

I END OF BORING AT 30.0 FEET.

J

J

~" 1

- ;

: j

1

~

l

LL.

1 . :

1Cp

zu

3

2 «————— 2 o»

1 11: h

APPENDIX B

Grain Size Distribution Reports

A grain size distribution chart typically quantifies the various particle sizes indicating generaldepositional trends. The distribution of the percentage of the total sample less than a certain sievesize can be plotted in a cumulative frequency diagram. The equivalent grain sizes are plotted to alogarithmic scale on the abscissa, while the percentage by mass of the total sample passing (finerthan) is plotted arithmetically on the ordinate. An example of some characteristic grain sizedistributions are shown in this appendix. As shown in the figure, a well-graded soil is one whichhas a good representation of particle sizes over a wide range, and its gradation curve is smooth andgenerally concave upward. A poorly graded soil would be one where there is either an excess ordeficiency of certain sizes or if most of the particles are about the same size. The uniform soilgradation shown is an example of a poorly graded soil. The Skinner soil samples tend to becharacterized as well graded sand, silt and clay, with the grain size distribution report being shownin the following pages.

Percent passing (finer than)by weight (or mass)

_o£.

(D£.30)N"oa(A^CT

5°(A

Percent retained (coarser than)by weight (or mass)

103

50

B0

730£U

E 531

r 59uuS 42Q.

3S

20

12

22?

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION - ASTM D422c""* c c e. rg , — — —

~ a c \, c 9 CD— .Z — — . - • » • ru CD co s sea ^ CD1 XXX ^ -• IM V U) — CXIo m eu »* * • £ » - « cn • • • »• »»

i: i: 1' t

: 1

1

1 i

!1 1

i|! i li

i

;ij;i:!i:! i

i1i

5

i; i ; i; i : :

I i ;

i \:: \:

; i : :;l

M Mil\ ; ••

: i Mi!: ! Ml

: 1

; 1 •: i' l:l

i j:i. i

''. : 1:: • r

i*l

!

!

^

I I 11 :

iI

11

i

IN-1 1 in

Ss,N,

i

i

i1

i

i

!*

i|

i

;

:i

:|

-

rs

i

i

32 :30 13.3 1.0GRSIN

X •>•3" i •/. SRrlvEL 1 '^ 3PND 1 '/.

'.

;

\*N•

':

i

I

i

:

s i^\^:

i

i

i

i

i1:

f•

'.•'.

s.s

j 1

: |

': \

S\s,

1

ii

t

Hi,! I

iIj

iii0. 1 0. 31

SIZE - mm

=:L~ 1 y. CL^Y 1 uses• i 2.3 1 12.3 | ^3.4 i 23.3 1 15.3 | SC~3ri

1

i

I |j 1

I

i

!|it

, : I

!3.22:

1 LL i =: 1|22.4 .25.3 i

I I I I I i i ]1 1. 1 1

1 SIEVEinenets iz«

0.75a. 5

]X^n63D30D13

^x^Cu

=iRCENi FI'NE:^ i• i | •

100.33.

0!4|

i

GRBIN SIZE i3.30.0

37

coernciENTs

3-CVElumoert .:e

4

1040

230

FE3CE>~ "NER |• |

57.773.252. 544.3

E amp if inrsrma

•3-59 9 14'-1S'3ROWN flrsD GRfiYSILTY, CLflYEY

*. Ion: ;

1

SflND i

Remarks :

NHC &y.5'-<

RflN BY: KMPGR16-02

RUSTENVIRONMENT &INFRASTRUCTURE

F

•

3ro jest No. : 72SB0.300'rojest: SKINNER LANDFILL

Date: 12.27.34 Lab. No.

111

100

50

30

70QiUi— i 50L.

£53Uuo:LJ 43Q.

33

22

13

32e

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION - ASTM D422c

c c 6c c c ^ c " " — — s o« _ _ . * . • ^ c u a Q o o o v oi xxx ^ • • < \ j ^ SA — e > j

\

. ^ ;

|i :

: i "

i Is; !

•

i :: - ;

I : 3; 1

^»y\

i ;

i

'

V

: I

N

\

'N

t

I

!5BMl

\

i

»lSi*•»-

:

:

:

;

^<-

]

^•V •*.

•1I

1

I

i ;

I

^

1

^J

i

ii30 100 13.3 1.3 3.1 0.31

3RRIN SI2£ - mm

1 X -3"• ! 0.0

\

\

'/. SR.PVEL •/. SfiND 1 X SILT i X CLP.Y | USCS51.3 24 .0 \ 10.3 | 4.4 | GC-Sr- E

1 I

1

size

PERCEN- FINER•

1.5 130.31 92.3 '

0.75 52.30.5 57.5

^X^ GRfliN SIZED-a 13.13D10 2 - 7 2

D10 0.01

^X^ COEFFICIENTS

Cc 55.53cu 757.4

SIEVEnumoer-

B tze

41040

200

PERCEN- FINER !•

= 3.727.019.514.7

•«i

\ _

•3

Sarr.plr in-rorrnc-. io

• 3-51 6 13'-12'SRC^N SILTY, CL^YGRnVE- WITH SrlND

i

—— —— i

L 1

•**2 . 21

= T

.3 ' 2 5 . 3

~ Y

Remarks :NMC 02. SX

RPiH BY: <nPGR16-33

i


Project No.: 72530.300Droject: SKINNER LflNDFILL

Date: 12.07.94 Lab. No.

PARTICLE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORTc

c e cC C C N C (DO_ Ji - - J: ^ cu a o o s a ^ $t x N x ^ -* nj • v t x - * e \ i

90

80

70QCLJ

5 50L.

E 53uu^4*

33

22

13

323

|:

i

i

j

i

^

LHi |\;' t -

M M' : i

: : :

M M

ss

1

ss

1

j

V

.

ts

X1

•

^

i-.

1 •t .

^t'iH-i i

^=;

i:

i

I

'.

1

a 130 10.3 1.3 3.1 0.31

i y. +3" ! * SRPVEL i H 3^ND 1 X SIL~ X C-P.Y 1 U5C3 1

*»•*i

3.331

i ; 1 PI !•| 3.3 i 55 .3 23.0 | 12.3 2.8 | GC-SM 22.2 e^.r

I 1I I I I

5 1 EVEincnes

s lie

21.5

12.730.5

^XC^D^D30D10

^x^= c

=ERCE1N" r!NER•

130.097.66S.3S0.755.3

GRflIN 3I2E13.47

L. 170.01

COE"ICIENTS

8. 13645.7

5!! EVEnumovr

41240

200

PERCENT TINER•

43.734.422.915.7

i

Samp Is i it-forme-, i o- :

• B-S2 e 14'- IS'SILTY CLAYEY GRSVELWITH 5AND

Remarks :NHC 04. Z'/.

RAN 3Y: S3GR7-39


Project No. : 72630.300Proj-ct: SKINNER LflNDFILL

Date: 11. IS. 94 Lab. No.

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION - ftSTM D422

100 __£

50

200 133 3. 331

5SND X SILT L;SC30.0 20. 3 12.3 SC-3"l !: = .E 2^.3

SIEVEi ncne*

1.51

Z.750.5

^><dDS0D^n

°10

^><CCcCu

I- ;.:<_;. N . r .N^R

•

130.393 .3 !54 . 393.5

SRfilN SIZE

1.250. 0S0.30

COEFFICIENTS1.54

841.4

SIEVEnumoert ize

4

1340

230

PERCENT FINER•

75.9£5.043.331. S

5smp '. ? i r f or nai L on :

; 3ROUN HILTY, CLAYEY5SND WITH GRAVEL

Remarks :NMC 03. IX

RfiM BY: <MPGR16-34


Prcjrc-t No.: 72S30.300Project: SKINNES LANDFILL

Date: 12.09.94 Lab. Nc

PflRTICLE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORTa . . .

',„ i illiisi i i s s s !i .

c1t1II<

90.

80

70r5 50j.

^jj5 403.

30

10

023

'<t~ vS L !:SH

.i

1 i

'S iS s

:

sV iv

N y

V1«

13

n <N«•

•-\ \•*.«

-e ISB i8.a i.a e.i e.ei

CRfllM SIZE - mra

X +3-• 0.Q

y. GRAVEL37.3

X SSNO43.5

Z SILT 7. C'-fi14.4 4.8

usessn

LL17.4

SIEVE• is*

Z1.5

1a. 75a.s

"XDgg

^xS:

PERCENT FINER•

136.98.94.ai.76.

a5t

i3

GRAIN SIZE3.60.30.0

73L

COEFFICIENTS2.6

346.27

SIEVEmutter1LX*

•41848

zee

PERCENT TINER•

52 .'753.73E.419.2

0.8B1

PI01.3

Sample information:• 3-5-1 6 18'- 22'

SILTY SAND WITH GRflVEL

Remarks:nnc 05. st

RAH BY: S3<3RT-ie

RUSY II Project No.j 72688.300ENVIRONMENT & Hprojwti SKifrcR LANDFILLINFRASTRUCTURE Ikte: U.IS.M i b. NO. ——

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION -c

s e e. ry . — _ —C C C N* C ffi S— — — — — • « • r u m a o Q D S - * • 5

i x v x *• — r y ^ o » -• c\** 3^! ** f* exj — ^. m — m • » •» * * «k«

90

52

70^

Ssau.E 53LJ0'rvu 42

32

22

12

222

1

iU" 111

! :

i| i ; l !

: 'i;!|

; i! i

I '1.

|;ii-

•%Hi-iT *

i ; ;|

i ! :-:\

: :l: : :!

.

: \'\

1

>^

M111j

i

jI '

; ii i

j ! : i : : M; . ! . !; : i •< j j |

0 123 12.3

i * -t-3" i 5C GR3VE_ 1 *

\V

»

V^*

j ;

!

•;

!

!]

1

iTrk;i.•j:i

ii

' ! i

; |

s"

;

;!! ;

1 : : ! i

i : i i ! l !i.a

3RSI>

3PND I X

2 .

s

.

;

. • ;?

sj

:i:|

j

ASTM D4H2

:j 1;i

t

> jilfr:

.

t

i

1 1I

i

>s

i ' ui

3. 1ZE - mm

!

SI_T I y. CL• : 2.2 | 2^.3 \ 35.5 1 E 3.7 1 11

1

1

j

1

i j :i ! |

i l l

! ! I •! i i iMi l ii ! i

i •i l l : i i i

i • \ ' : • Ii! M : • i

><: l

li tH^^1 ; , ; 1 ;i ' i ! ii : ! i ! :

a . a i :••::•:

PY uses L_ -:3 : SC- = ,r i'2. : Ci Z

i l l 1 !' 1 1 i 1

SIEVEinches

; s ize

i2.753.5

i PEP-CENT .~:^E:r| •

138.S7.52.

\ \a3

3

i Xdl GRflIN SIZE

i :JS3~302 13

iXCu

1.02.0? !

3 1i1

COErTICIENTSC-*iw

i 5nIEVE i PERCENT F:NER i iurnoe^s i z e ! • I

12 i^3!

232 ;

ii

75.1= 3.052.3= 5.5

1

j

3amplr i r f o-na*. 1 o~ .

' •3-55 e 19 '-22'i 3ROWN HILT^, C>PYE'

S3ND WITH GRflVE-

Remarks :NMC 37. 2X

RSN BY: KMPGR1S-35


Project No. : 72580.300Projsct: SKINNER LANDFILL

Cats: 12.38.94 Lab. No. ————

PPRTICLE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORTe e e

. ry • — — —C C C N C SO— — — — — -r c\j CD a o a a ^-5

1 X X X . — M T- J *• M1 CTCT UJ ft) CM •* ^" n> — * (t> * * » * « * •

33

33

73

u5 S3ui— _Z 2>2uurvu 42

=2

22

2SS

; mi1

!P! ' •

' ii

: i

i r

i;

i

I

!

1

N •

\"

i ;%

: ','- '. it

1•Ai

! 1 :

|

'

i .

\^

1

|

i

^^^iiu^ii.

- 1

i! i

1 j

;

:

4,*>

i

:

i

•

i

*>-i

n«••»,•>

1

i 111

i .i • :I ;

i i

i

fc^^«^.N>w

3 123 10.3 1.3 3.1 0.31 -:.:2lGR3IM SIZE - mrn

X -=" V. SRflVEL X 3SND i X =I_T | '/. CLSY i USCS _ z ".• 3.3 *3.7 25.1 i 14.7 5.5 ! GC | 2 Z . 5 :~ :

i! i 1

incne*s i re

2.750.2

rExCENT FINER

i •133.3

=4.7S2.5

i

^X^: 3RRIN SIZED <•

3 w

><C.Cu

5.713.233.30

COEFFICIENTS

3.232553.

nuraoerc '; =*

412

232

PERCENT FINER•

33.342.4= 3.224.1

• =-56 9 16'- IS'CL3YEY GRfiVE_ WI~- ;- -I

Remarks:NMC 03. 5X

RflM SY: KMK ;GR7-20

RUSTENVIRONMENT &INFRflSTRUCTURE

=roj=ct No.: 72S80.300Project : SKINNER LflNDFILL

Date: 11.17.94 Lab. No

APPENDIX C

Coefficient of Uniformity and Curvature Formulas

1) The coefiBcient of uniformity (CJ is a crude shape parameter, and is defined as:

D10

where Dw = grain diameter (mm) corresponding to 60 % passing, andDH, = grain diameter (mm) corresponding to 10 % passing, by mass.

2) Another shape parameter that is often used for soil classification is the coefficient ofcurvature defined as:

C. = J(D30£(D10XD«)

where D30= grain diameter (mm) corresponding to 30% passing,DSQ = grain diameter (mm) corresponding to 60 % passing, andD10 = grain diameter (mm) corresponding to 10 % passing, by mass.

APPENDIX D

USDA Triangle Coordinate Soil Classification Charts

100

90

percent sand

F H8.—Chart showing1 tin; percentages of day (bcl»\v 0.002 mm.) ,silt (0.00'J to 0.05 m m . ) , an/ sand (iUi, r> to LM) mm.) ii> the basic soiltextura l ('lasses. V

(HMe<--6M» "<S\uT ~CuM

2-ZV.31.54'/.""2^?-

Z.V. ^i •

) C»|4>»«^T

r "^\ i«^.;

55*7.m.«

«1<.1.

,\,

",!y u

- .v \v\ . v \. . yv- v.

i ? l

!«*

<-»:•!::•:•:•:;••.,/^6X^\A/' \/ -^:&£>vVJ

/ A /V. AVA VYVVW/ / '\ v . / v y v v /\,»V vy' • • • • ' -

2.

APPENDIX E

Casagrande's Plasticity Chart

60

50

40X0)

30

ega

20

Low plastic inorganicclays; sandy andsilly clays \

.Silty clays;-clayey siltsand sands -

Inorganic clays ofhi(|l\ plasticity

Micaceous or diatomaceous"line sandy and silty soils;_elastic silts; organic silts,clays, and silty clays

IOH

or

MHInorganic and organic silts

__ and silty clays of low- plasticity; rock flour;

silty or clayey fine sands

40 50 60

Liquid limit

70 80 90 100

Fig. 3.2 Casagrande's plasticity chart, showing several representative soil types (developed from Casa-grande, 1948. and Howard. 1977).

f T ^ U-0A

LIQUID flND PLftSTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

58

xU

tocc

IB

CH OP OH

Upper Limit Line -

CL or OL

HflTCHEBflfiEB ISHL-CL

ML Or OL OP OH

0 13 23 38 48 33 60 70LIQUID LIMIT

BO 90

Location * Descr iptlon LL PL PI -200 PSTM D 2487-90B-S4 3 8'- S'

CLBY WITH SBND 33. S 33.2 IS.-4 Bl.lCL, Lean clay with

sand

B-SS 6 IS'- 18'CLflYEY GRfiVEL WITH SflND 22.5 15.2 7.3 24.1

CC, Clayay gruj th sand

TP-8 6 0'-LESM CLflY 47.5 20.7 26.8 85.3

CL, Lean clay

Ppojeet N o . : 73588.388Project: SKINHS? LPNDFILL

Client: SKINNCR LANDFILLLaeatlan:

; 11.17.94.

LIQUID flND PLPSTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

RUST BfttROrtEKT & inFRASTOJCTURE

B-S4 6 0'- S'

B-SS e is-- is'TP-8 6 0'- 4'

Late. No.

LIQUID AND PLftSTIC LIMITS TEST REPORTsa

X

zn

I-|M4

o

COec

CH or OH

Upper Limit Line -

CL or OL

HflTCHEDO'RSA isHL-CL

PL OP OL MH or OH

19 29 33 «3 59 SB

LIQUID LIMIT

70 80 30

Location + LL PL PI -230 fiSTn D 2487-90» B-fi2.e 4'- 8'

SILTY SflHD WITH GRSVEL 15.7Sn, S i l ty sand with

B-62 8 14'- IS'SILTY CLAYEY GRflVEL WITHSPMO ________

28.2 15.3 4.9 15.7GC-GT1, Slliy clayey

gra.vel u t t h sand

S IS'- 22'SILTY 5J5MD WITH 17.4 16.1 1.3 19.2

Sit, S i l t i j 4«nd wi-thgr*v»l

«. 3-SS 3 4'- 7'CLflYEY SRflVEL UITH SflND 25.6 17.0 8.6 22. a

GC, Clayey gravelwith sand

x GU-St « 13'- 22'SILTY SRflv/CL UITH SflND 18. 614.9 3.7 14.6

, Siltyuith sand

- Non-Viscous NP -

Pro jest No. : 72698.309Project: SKIMMER UflNDFXU-

C l i * n t > SKINNCRLac *.t Ion:

; 11.15.94

LIQUID fiND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

RUST EMviRorffercr

Reraeu-kw:

B-S2 6 4'- 6'

B-62 S 14'. !£'

B-64 « 18'- E2'

B-SS « 4.'- 7'

SU-51 € 18'- 22'

Lab. No.

APPENDIX F

Gas Permeability Calculations

niJCr ENVIRONMENT S:INFRASTRUCTURE

CLIENT __

PROJECT.

CALCULATION SHEET

su BJ ECT -c

PROJECT NO.

Prepared By '.Reviewed By.Approved By.

Date.Date.Date.

* I 3 7 /y

(J

— 2.

- 2.

S) -L 2. ^ ±- = _ c,. 167

APPENDIX G

Lateral Pressure Drop From Soil Venting Wells

////> ZONE 2 !/ / / /

y;<>^

_ _ _ 760

_ _ _ _ 750

C\TX - - - - 740

- - - - 730

720

710

- - - - 700

- - - - 6SO

LEGEND

//r

ZONE

ZONE 2

INACTIVE CELLS

NO FLOW BOUNORY

SOIL VENTING WELL

CONSTANT HEAD BOUNORY

LINE DIVIDING ZONES 1 AND 2

AIR FLOW MODELING FINITEDIFFERENCE GRID SYSTEM

Vacuum (ft of w a t e r ) , Co s o 60, 1 c f in v o c u u m por w e l l at tho end of B0 d o y s

WE

60.00

a-

oO 40.00LT)

20.00

V-

aa

Cl

0.00 J______L I. J -_____I______L0.00 100.00 i>00.00 300.00 100.00 500.00

DIs to n c e ( f t ) e n s I n e s t d i r e c t i o n o I o n g Se c t I o n E L '

Vacuum (ft of water), Case 6b, 1 cfm vacuum per w e l l at the end of 500 days

wE

60.00

O

oO 40.00L

01>O-0 20.00

0.00 J______I______I______I______I . I______I______La(Da

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 ^ 400.00 500.00

D i s t a n c e ( f t ) e a s t w e s t d i r e c t i o n a l o n g ' S e c t l o n E-E'

Vacuum ( f t o f w a t e r ) , Case 7a , 2 c fm v a c u u m per w e l I a t the end o f G0 day

C4E

60.00

oo 40.00L-v0)

0)>O

-° 20.00

"n 0.000) 0.00

Q

J______L J______I J______I______I______I100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00

D i s t a n c e ( f t ) e a s t w e s t d i r e c t i o n a l o n g S e c t i o n E-E'

Vacuum (ft of w a t e r ) Case 7b, 2 cfm vacuum per wol I at the end of 500 days

60.00

oo 40.00cX)0)

.£)

0)>O-e 20.00

a 0.00a> 0.00T)

I

(D

I _L100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00

D i s t a n c e ( f t ) e a s t w e s t d i r e c t i o n a l o n g S e c t i o n E-E"

Analysis of In Situ Vacanin Well Placement Using MODFLOW

ANALYSIS OF IN SITU VACUUM WELL PLACEMENT USING MODFLOW

BACKGROUND

The governing equation for 3-D single phase flow which is solved by MODFLOW usinga finite difference method is given by

where the volumetric flux density in the t-direction is given by

i. - - * [2]

These equations describe saturated grouadwater flow subject to certain assumptionsregarding decoupling between saturated and ucsaturated zones. The same equationsmay be used to simulate gas flow in the unsaturated zone under the assumption that: 1)gradients in gas phase density are small compared to the divergence of the gas velocity;2) effects of gas pressure gradients on water flow by capillary effects are disregarded,e.g., water table upweiling is ignored; and 3) gravitational gas flow is assumed negligiblecompared to pressure effects. Under these conditions, [1] and [2] will describe gas flowin the unsaturated zone when ?, is taken as :he volumetric flux density of gas and othervariables are defined as follows

Joe

h = P/f. 3 J3)

K, = />, g «.,/>».g*./p. RT ' [5]

gauge gas phase pressure [F L"1], P* is the density of water [M L3], g isceieration [L TJ], k,t is gas peraeaoiiity in the t-direction [L!], n« is the

"5

where P is thegravitational acceL . . - - . - . • » - . . .dynamic viscosity of the gas phase [F T L"5], A> is the molecular weight of gas [Mmol"'], «« is the gas tilled porosity [L3 L*3], />* is the density of gas [M L"1], R is the gasconstant [F L mo!"1 deg*1] and T'a Kelvin temperature [deg].

In equation [3], h represents the gas pressure expressed in units of equivalent waterheight. For example, 'an absolute gas presssure of O.S atm or equivalently a vacuum of0.2 atm corresponds to a gas pressure head of h — -2 m. In equations [4] and [5], K,and S. may be referred to as the gas conductivity and specific storage, respectively. Itshould be noted that alternative means of defining a gas conductivity are possible (usinga different reference fluid density) so caution should be used to ensure consistent usage.In [5] it has been assumed that porous medium compressibility is negligible and gascompressibility follows the ideal gas law. For a gas-filled porosity of 0.2 at 10*C, the gasspecific storage. S,, will be approximately 0.02 m*1. For steady state analyses, the valueof Si has no effect on the solution - it only effects the time required to reach steadystate conditions.

-23-

I

An alternative way to write [4] arises by noting that k,t = i,. where k. is the gasrelative permeability which varies from 0 to 1 and 4,- is the intrinsic permeability in thet-direction. Since intrinsic permeability is related to the saturated hydraulicconductivity, &«,, as i. = JC*,->?*/i»; then we may write

*v«j S fc» A««/>7r«

where ??r. = IJ./TJ.. Relative permeability, t-.. will vary from zero when •*. is zero to 1when *• is equal to the total porosity, *. The sensitivity of gas relative permeability togas filled porosity is rather mild at low water contents such that relative permeabilitygenerally decreases in a manner roughly proportional to the gas saturation, ««/<*, for gassaturations greater than about 25%. Therefore, to first approximation, gas conductivitymay be estimated from hydraulic conductivity if this is known by emplo3Tng [6] withir... as 4./4. Vertical variations in intrinsic permeability as well as gas relativepermeability could be incorporated in the numerical analysis by assigning different gaspermeabilities to different layers or area! zones in the model. In practice, the mostpractical and reliable procedure for determining gas conductivity will be to perform anis.situ gas pump test. The pump test data may be analyzed in the same fashion asconventional water pump tests using analytical methods (e.g., Theis or Jacob) or thenumerical model may be used to simulate the pump test with conductivity adjusted (byhand or using an automatic algorithm) to fit the observed flow rates and/or observationwell pressures.

IEXAMPLE PROBLEM

• A hypothetical problem was analyzed to demonstrate the use of MODFLOW fordesigning in situ vacuum extraction systems. The problem involves a domain 250 x 250m in the area! plane with an unsaturated soil thickness of 20 m (Figure 1). Part of the

_- soil surface over the central 150 x 150 m of the domain is covered with a gas| impermeable material and the remainder is open to the atmosphere on an annular strip.

Soil properties were assumed to be uniform over the domain with KT=Kr=300 m d"1

and A",=1QO m d"1. The gas specific storage was taken to be 0.02 m"1. In analysis A,three vacuum extraction wells [VV-1. W-2 and W-3) were placed through the coveredarea and screened over the depth of 15 to 20 m. La analysis B, a fourth well (W-4),screened over the same interval, was placed at a location that would otherwise yield astagnation point in the gas flow.

Boundary con&iiions. The lower boundary of the system is the upper limit of thecapillary fringe (or to first approximation, the water table). This boundary is assumedinitially known from observation well data and is fixed with time. The boundarycondition at the bottom is no-flow. Actually, water table upwelling will occur whenvacuum wells are pumped. The exact rise in the water table will be equal in magnitudeand opposite in sign to the gas pressure head on the lower boundary. Therefore, if amore refined analysis is desired, the location of the lower boundary may be corrected inan iterative fashion. The simplest way to accomplish this would be to reduce theconductivity of the lower blocks in proportion to the fraction which is water-saturated(i.e., if water occupies 0.6 of the block height, reduce K by 0.6).

- 2 4 -

The lateral boundaries of the system are also treated as no flow boundaries and shouldbe located such that this assump.tion is met. That is, it is desired that the Lateralboundaries be far enough away from the vacuum source that negligible pressure changeis propogated to the boundary. If initial simulations indicate this condition is not 'met,the domain size should be increased.

The upper boundary is the soil surface. Covered portions should be treated as no flowboundaries. Portions which are uncovered should be treated as constant pressureboundaries. Specifically, h=Q is assumed on atmospheric boundaries.

Vacuum wells are treated as normal pumping wells in MODFLOW with the total gasflow rate prescribed [M3 T*1]. Note that withdrawal rates have a negative sign. If thewell bore vacuum is known rather than the withdrawal rate, then the latter should beguessed and several trial simulations performed until the correct flow rate is obtained.In the present case, the flow rates at wells W-l, W-2 and W-3 were each assumed to be10,000 m3 d'1.

Injection wells are treated as interior prescribed pressure nodes. Specifically, they aretreated as nodes with a constant pressure of h=Q on the screened portion. Well W-4 istreated in this fashion.

Model rssvlts. Contour plots of the steady state gas pressure head distributions forproblems A and B are shown in Figures 2 and 3. respectively. In designing the vacuumsystem, it is desired to have gas flow directed through the hydrocarbon contaminatedsoil with no stagnant zones. Placement, screening interval and pressure of vacuum wells;location and screening interval of intake wells; and extent of surface cover may bemanipulated to achieve suitable system operating conditions. Inspection of the pressurefield within the zone of contamination may be used to judge the design in an ad hocfashion. A more quantitative and accurate approach would be to perform an analysis oftravel time distributions through the plume with the objective of designing the systemto minimize the mean travel time and the travel time variance. Such an analysis couldbe performed using a program such as GWPATE which interfaces with MODFLOW tocompute travel times on selected streamlines. Starting points for the travel timeanalysis should be selected on start at the plume boundary and at injection wells if theyoccur such that streamtubes of equal total Sow are analyzed.

-25

1

1

1Figure 1. Areal view of hypothetical gas venting problem.

1

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

Figure 2. Contour plot of gas pressure heads (i, meters) without injectioa well W-4.

- 2 6 -

I

i

iFigure 3. Contour plot of gas pressure heads (k, meters) with injection well W-4.

-27-

APPENDIX H

Hyperventilate Information Package

SKINNER LANDFILLSVE SYSTEM FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION

USING HYPERVENTILATE DECISION-SUPPORT SOFTWARE

Hyperventilate was the primary tool used in evaluating the feasibility of SVE at the SkinnerLandfill. This interactive, software guidance system is approved by, and available from the USEPA.The two applications for Hyperventilate were intended to determine the following:

1. To determine if soil venting is appropriate at a site2. To approximate the minimum number of extraction wells anticipated to be needed

AN EVALUATION OF SVE WELLS INSTALLED WITHIN THE LAGOON BOUNDARY

A. Lagoon Lithology

1. Based upon 15 test boring (prior Rust investigation)2. Sediments are Clay to Silty-Clay Soils3. Static Water Level at 18 to 27 feet below grade

Input data for Hyperventilate Model:

Type of Soil

Permeability Range (darcy)

Well Radius

Radius of Influence

Interval Thickness

Temperature

Composition of Contaminant

Estimated Spill Mass

Desired Remediation Time

Contaminant Distribution:Radius of InfluenceInterval ThicknessAverage Concentration

Design Vacuum

Silty Clay

0.01 -0.0001

4 "

30'

10'

16 degrees C

BETX (for model application)

26,900 kg

547.5 days (1 5 years)

20,000 ft2

10ft2,666 mg/kg

120 " H2O

Based upon the given input parameters, the Hyperventilate Software indicated that a minimum of84 SVE wells would be required to remediate the buried lagoon contaminants. A number of thismagnitude is not practical for a cost-effective soil venting system.

SKINNER LANDFILLSVE SYSTEM FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION

PERIMETER SOIL EVALUATIONUSING HYPERVENTILATE DECISION-SUPPORT SOFTWARE

Hyperventilate was used in evaluating the feasibility of SVE in the perimeter soils at the SkinnerLandfill. This interactive, software guidance system is approved by, and available from the USEPA.The two applications for Hyperventilate were intended to determine the following:

1. To determine if soil venting is viable and effective in the perimeter soils.2. To approximate the minimum number of extraction wells anticipated to be needed

AN EVALUATION OF SVE WELLS INSTALLED WITHIN THE PERIMETER SOILS

A. Perimeter Soil Lithology

1. Based upon 7 perimeter test borings (Rust supplimental investigation)2. Sediments are Sandy Loam Soils3. Static Water Level at 18 to 27 feet below grade

Input data for Hyperventilate Model:

Type of Soil

Permeability Range (darcy)

Well Radius

Radius of Influence

Interval Thickness

Temperature

Composition of Contaminant

Estimated Spill Mass

Desired Remediation Time

Contaminant Distribution:Radius of InfluenceInterval ThicknessAverage Concentration

Design Vacuum

Sandy Loam

0.05-0.005

4 "

30'

10'

16 degrees C

BETX (for model application)

26,900 kg

365 days

20,000 ft2

10ft2,666 mg/kg

120 " H2O

Based upon the given input parameters, the Hyperventilate Software indicated that a minimum of32 SVE wells would be required to contain the migration of contaminants through perimeter soilsA number of this magnitude is not practical for a cost-effective soil venting system.

IIIII

IIII

I

I

I

I

IRust Environment & Infrastructure I

II

Pnnted nil KecYclecl Paper £ /99i Rial Enrirnnmenl c"- Infraslntctur\.' Imnub Sur Ink

rust inc - final soil vapor extraction system … · final soh. vapor extraction system feasibility...

Documents